Skip to main content

Full text of "An Introduction To The Critical Studp And Knowledge Of The Holly Scriptures"

See other formats




Critical Mubv anti iftnotoie&ge 











London i 

Printed by A. & R. Spottiswoode, 
New- Street- Squ are. 


Supposed to have been executed between a. d. 1420 and 1435, 

atiodf! CjoGS C eft fame 
ip tat* totajmlcC/e aicamca 
rf macula no e u&ittiamift 

lOt c * V® qmaC&miecQ eafjma 
^eaTauue mamla oiffpcci ft) 
initamt) m itiqniFedift^SfJit 


legi^imdt-m mjw 
. ifjaffijeoui.jtfDqenwariitff 
sol I tueetiTfln^UHfefitaiSnS * 

I wriifinft'bfitafit 1 aft eunetorij 

loqmtfti) om6 rngufthutw ? 
mftitf eo atiTcultaiui I fyu % , 

P — ’ 






Chapter I. On the Original Languages of Scripture. 

Section I. On the Hebrew Language. 

Introductory Remarks on the Oriental or Shcmitish Languages « - 2 

I. Origin of the Hebrew Language - 3 

II, Historical Sketch of the Hebrew Language - 5 

III. Antiquity of the Hebrew Characters « - 3 

IV. Antiquity of the Hebrew Vowel -Points - - - 8 — 12 

Section II. On the Greek Language , 

I, Similarity of the Greek Language of the New Testament with that of 

the Alexandrian or Septuagint Greek Version - - 13 

II. The New Testament, why written in Greek ~ - 13— -18 

III. Examination of the Style of the New Testament - - 18—22 

IV. Its Dialects - - - - - - _ 22 

Hebraisms - - _ 23 27 

Rabbinisms 27 

Aramoeisms, or Syriasms and Chaldaisms - _ 27 

Latinisms - - - 28 

Fersisms and Cilicisms - - „ 29 

Section III. Of the Cognate or Kindred Languages , 

I. Aramaean with its two Dialects ; 1. The Chaldee j 2, The Syriac - 30 

II. The Arabic, with its Derivative, the Eth topic - - _ 31 

III. Use and Importance of the Cognate Languages to Sacred Criticism - 3j 

Chapter II. On the Antient Versions of the Scriptures . 

Section I. On the Targums or Chaldee Paraphrases of the 
Old Testament . 

I. Targum of Onkelos - - .. . 34 

II. Targum of the Pseudo-Jonathan - - 35 

III. The Jerusalem Targum «. - - » ibid. 

IV. The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel - - .. 33 

V. The Targum oil the Hagiographa - - „ 37 

VI. The Targum 011 the Megilloth - - - .. ibid. 

VII. VIII. IX. Three Targums on the Book of Esther - - Jhid. 

X. A Targum on the Books of Chronicles - - - ibid. 

XI. Real Value of the different Targums - - - - ibid, 

A 2 



Section II. On the Antient Greek Versions of the Old Testament . Page 

I The Septuagint - - - - - 39 

1, HisLory of it - - » - 39 — 42 

2, A Critical Account of its Execution - 42 — 44 

3. What Manuscripts were used by its Authois - - 44 — 46 

4. Account of the Biblical Labours of Origen - - 47 — 50 

5 Notice of the Recensions or Editions of Eusebius and Pam- 

philus, of Lucian and Hesvchius - - 50,51 

C Importance of the Septuagint Veision in the Ciiticism and In- 
terpretation of the New Testament - - 51 

II Account of other Greek Versions of the Old Testament 52 

1. Version of Aquila - - - - 52 

2. Version of Theodotion - - 52 

3. Version of Symmachus - 53 

4. 5, 6. Anonymous Veisions - - 54 

III. References in Antient Manuscripts to other Veisions - - 54,55 

Section III. On the Antient Oriental Vei'sions <f the Old and 
New Testaments . 

I. SyriaL Versions - 56 

1 Peschito, or Literal Version - - 56 — 59 

2 Philoxenian Version - - - 59, 60 

3 Syro-Estrangelo and Paleestino- Syriac Version - - 60, G1 

II. Egyptian Versions - - - - - 61 

Coptic and Sahidic Versions - - - 62 

Ammonian and Basmmic Versions - - - 63 

III. Ethiopic Version - 64 — 66 

IV. Arabic Versions - - - - 67, 68 

V. Armenian Version - - - - - 68 

VI. Persian Versions - - - - 69 

Section IV, On the Antient Western Versions of the Scriptiwes . 

I Antient Latin Versions of the Scnptuies - - - 69 

1. Old Italic or Ante-Hieronymian Veision - - 69 

2, Biblical Labours and Latin Version of Jeiome - - 70 

5. Vulgate Version and its Revisions - 71 74 

4. Critical Value of the Latin Vulgate Version - - 74, 75 

II The Gothic Veision - . . - - 75 

III. The Sclavonic Veision - - * - 76 

IV. Anglo-Saxon Version - - _ 77^ 79 

Chapter III. On the Manuscripts of the Bible . 

Section I. On the Hebrew Manuscripts of the Old Testament ■ 

I. Different Classes of Hebrew Manuscripts . - f )0 

II. The Rolled Manuscripts of the Synagogue - ibid. 

III. The Square Manuscripts used by the Jews 111 private Life - - 81 

IV. Antient Recensions or Editions of Hebiew Manuscripts - 82 

V. Age of Hebrew Manuscripts - - 83 

VI. Of the Order in which the Sacred Books are arranged in Manuscupts 84 

VII. Modern Families or Recensions of Hebiew Manuscripts - - 85, 86 

VIII. Notice of the most Antient Manuscripts - - - 86 — 89 

IX. Brief Notice of the Manuscupts of die Indian Jews - - 89 91 

Section II. On the Manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch . 

I Origin of the Samaritans - „ 93 

II. Account of the Samaritan Pentateuch, — Manuscripts of it - - 94 

III Variations of the Samaritan Pentateuch from the Hebrew - 95 

IV. Versions of the Samaritan Pentateuch - - 96 i 97 

Section III. On the Manuscripts f the Greek Scriptures. 

§ 1, General Observations on Greek Manuscripts* 

I, On what Materials written - - „ - 97 

II, Form of Letters - _ - 99 


III. Abbreviations - - - 

IV. Codices Palimpsesti or Rescript! - 

V. Account of the different Families, Recensions, 01 Editions of Manu- 
scripts of the New Testament - - - 

1. The System of Dr Gnesbach and Michaelis 

2. The System of M. Matthau - 

3. The System of Mi . Nolan - - 

4 The System of Prof, Hug - - - 

5. The System of Pi of. Scholz - - 

VI. On the Fcedus cum Gieccis, or Coincidence between many Gmek Ma« 
nusciipts and the Vulgate Latin Version - - 

98, 1 

100 — 1 ] 
101— 1C 

104— 1J 



§ 2 . Account oj Grech Manusci ipts containing the Old and New 
Testaments . 

I The Alcxandimn Manusci ipt - - 116 — 12 

II. The Vatican Manuscript - - - 122 — 12 

§ 3 . Account of Manuscripts {entire or m part ) containing'^ifie' 
Scptuagmt oi Greek Vei'sion of the Old Testament . 

I. The Codex Cottonianus - - - - -125 — 12! 

II. III. The Codices, Sairavianus and Colbcrtmus - - 12 

IV. The Codex Caisaieus - - - -.12 

V The Codex Ambrosianus - - - - 12 

VI. The Codex Coislinianus - - - -13' 

VII The Codex Basilio-Vaticanus - - - 13' 

VIII The Codex Tuncensis - - - - IS 

§ 4 . Account of the principal Manuscnpts containing the New 
Testament , entire or m part . 






















The Codex CoLtoniauus (Titus C. XV ) - 

The Codex Bczeg oi Cantabrigicnsis - - 

The Codex Eplnemi - - 

The Codex Clfiiomontanus - 

The Codex Argenteus - - - 

MSS of the Gothic Version, discovered by signor Mai - 
The Codex Rescriptus of St. Matthew’s Gospel in Trinity College, 
Dublin - - - - 

The Codex Laudianus, S. 

The Codex Coislinianus - - - 

The Codex Boerncrianus - - 

The Codex Cyprms - - 

The Codex Basiliensis E. - - - 

The Codex San-Germanensis - - 

The Codex Augicnsis - 

The Codex Harleianus, 5598 

The Codex Regius, oi Stephani t \ - 

The Codex Uffenbaehianus - - 

The Codices Manners- Suttoniam - - 

The Codices Mo&quonses - 

The Codex Biixiensis 

Other MSS written in small characters, and deserving of especial 
notice j viz. 

1, The Codex Basileensis, 1 . - 

2. The Codex Berohnensis - 

3. The Codex Coisendoncensis * 

4. The Codex Montfuitianus - 

5. The Codex Meermanmanus - - 

6. The Codex Regius, 50. - - - 

7. The Codex Leicestrensis - - - 

8. The Codex Vindobonensis - * 

9. The Codex Ebnerianus - * 

10. The Codex Gfctobonianus - - , - 

Notices of the Collations of the Barberini and Velcsian Manuscnpts - 

A 3 





138, 13' 
140, 14 


142, 14f 
















157, 158 


I J age 

1 59 


1 62 

IV. Account of the Masora - - 163—167 

V. Modern Divisions of the Books of the Old Testament. — Chapters 

and Verses - - - - 167, 169 

Section II. On the Divisions and Marks of Distinction , occur- 
ring in the Neva Testament . 

I. Antient Divisions of TitVgi and Ke^aAaics - - - 169 

Ammonian, Eusebian, and Euthalian Sections. — Modern Division of 

Chapters - - - - - 170 

II. Account of the Antient and Modem Punctuation of the New Testa- 
ment - - - - - 171 

'Antient tribal and Modern Verses - - - 172, 173 

III. Of the Titles to each Book - - - 173 

IV. Subscriptions to the different Books - - - 174 

Chapter IV. On the Divisions and Maries of Distinction, 
occurring in Manuscripts and printed Editions of the Scrip- 

Section I. On the Divisions and Marks of Distinction, occurring 
in the Old Testament . 

I. Different Appellations given to the Scriptures - 
II. General Divisions of the Canonical Books - 

III Particulaily of the Old Testament - 

1. The Law - 

2. The Prophets - - - 

3. The Cetubim or Hagiographn - - 

Chapter V. Of the Various Readings occurring m the Old 
and Nei i> Testaments. 






The Christian Faith not affected by Various Readings - ] 75 

Nature of Various Readings. — Difference between them and mere 

Errata - 

Causes of Various Readings 

1 . The Negligence or Mistakes of Transcribers 

2 . Errors or Imperfections in the Manuscript copied 

3. Critical Conjee tuie 

4. Wilful Corruptions of a Manuscript from Party Motives 
Sources, whence a true Reading is to be determined 

1. Manuscripts - v , 

2. Antient Editions 

3. Antient Versions - 

4. Parallel Passages - - 

5. Quotations in the Writings of the Fathers 

6. Critical Conjecture 

General Rules for judging of Various Readings 



- 177 — 1 ao 


- 181, 182 

- 183 

- 183 

- 183—185 


- 186—190 

- 190—192 

- 192—195 

- 195,196 

- 196—203 

Chapter VI. On the Quotations from the Old Testament in 
the New . — Quotations in the New Testament from the Apo- 
cryphal Writers , and ft om P? qfane Authors - - 204* 

Section I. On the External Form of the Quotations from the 
Old Testament m the New. 

I. Tables of the Quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures and from the 
Septuagint Version, in the Order in which they occur in the New 

Testament - „ ggg 2 4 <y 

IT. Classification of the Quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures in the 

New Testament 

- 247—251 

III* Classification of the Quotations from the Septuagint Version in the 

New Testament , ^ 

IV; Considerations on the probable Causes of the seeming Discrepancies 

in the Quotations from the Old Testamenfam the New „ _ 256— 25a 




Section II. On the Internal Form of Quotations, or the Mode in 
•which Citations from the Old Testament are applied in the 
New. I 

General Observations on the Rabbinical and other Modes of quoting the 
Old Testament. — Classification of the Quotations in the New 
Testament - - * - 260—263 

I. Quotations from the Old Testament m the New, in which the Predic- 
tions are literally accomplished 269 

II. Quotations, in which that is said to have been done, of which the 

Scriptures have not spoken in a literal, but in a spiritual, Sense - 264 

III. Quotations made by the Sacred Writeis, in the Way of Illustration - 265— 268 

IV. Quotations, and other Passages in the Old Testament, which are al- 

luded to in the New - - 26S 

Section III. Of Apocryphal Passages , supposed to be quoted in 

the New Testament . — Quotations from Profane Authors - 270 — 272 
Chapter VII. On Harmonies of Scripture. 

I. Occasion and Design of Harmonies of Scriptuie - - 272 

II. Harmonies of the Four Gospels - - 273 

III. Observations on the different Schemes of Harmonisers, and on the 

Duration of the Public Ministry of Jesus Christ - - 275— 28C 





Chapter I. On the Sense of Scripture. 

Section I. On the Meaning of Words . 

I Nature of Words - - - 28 

II. Sense of Scripture defined - - - 28 

1. The Literal Sense - - * - - 282, 28 

2. The Allegorical, Typical, and Parabolic Sense 28 

3. The Moral Sense of Professor Kant shown to be without 

Foundation - - - 26 

Section II. General Rules for investigating the Meaning of 

Words ~ ~ 286 — 2£ 

Section III. Of Emphases. 

I. Nature of Emphasis . — its different kinds - - 3i 

II, Verbal Emphases - - - 2J 

1. Emphases of the Greek Article - - 293 — 2j 

2. Emphases of other words - - 2! 

3. Emphatic Adverbs - - - - 2‘ 

III. Real Emphases - - - - 2! 

IV. General Rules for the Investigation of Emphases - * 29 6 — % 

Chapter II. On the Subsidiary Means for ascertaining the 
Usus Loquendi. 

Section I. Direct Testimonies for ascertaining the Usus Loquendi. 

§ 1. The Testimony op Contemporary Writers. — Sources op this Tes- 
timony : — 

I. Definition of Words * - - 2 

II. Examples, and the Nature of the Subject - - - 3 

III. Comparison of Similar or Parallel Passages - - 300—3 


Section I. Direct Testimonies for ascertaining the Usus Lo - Page 

quendt , continued. 

§ 2. Antient Versions — 

Importance of Antient Veisions as an hermeneutical Aid - - 310? 311 

Observations on the respective Meats of the several Antient Ver- 
sions - - - - 312 

Rules for consulting them to the best advantage - - 313, 314 

§ 3, Scholiasts and Glossographers — 

I Nature of Scholia - - - 314 

II And of Glossaues - - - - 315 

III. Rules for consulting them to advantage in the Interpretation of 

the Scriptures - - - - -315, 316 

§ 4. On the Testimony of Foreigners who have acquired a Language 316 — 318 

Section II, Indirect Testimonies for ascertaining the Usus Lo - 

§ 1, Of the Context* — - _ - - - 318 

1. The Context defined and illustrated - - -318 — 320 

II Rules for ascertaining the Context - 320-^324 

§ 2. Of the Subject-Matter - - - 325 

§ 3. Of the Scope - - 326 

I. The Scope defined. — Importance of investigating the Scope of 

a Book or Passage of Scripture - - - 326 

II. Rules for investigating it - - - 327 — 330 

§ 4, Analogy of Languages - - - - 330 

I. Analogy of Languages defined. — Its different Kinds - ibid. 

II. Use of Grammatical Analogy - - - 331 

III. Analogy of Kindred Languages - - ibid. 

IV. Hints for consulting this Analogy in the Interpretation of Scrip- 

ture — — ■ - 332 — 334 

V. Foundation of Analogy m all Languages - - 334 

§ 5. Or the Analogy of Faith - - - 335 

I. Analogy of Faith, defined and illustrated - - 335 

II. Its Importance in studying the Sacred Writings - - 336 

III. Rules for investigating the Analogy of Faith - - 337 — 340 

§ 6. On the Assistance to be derived moat Jewish Writings in the In- 
terpretation of the Scriptures — 

I. The Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament - - 341 

II. The Talmud - 341 

1. The Misna . - - ibid. 

2. The Gemara or Commentary - - - 342 

Jerusalem and Babylonish Taliuuds - - ibid. 

III. The Writings of Philo and Josephus - - 344 

1. Account of Philo - - - ibid. 

2. Account of Josephus - - - 345, 346 

§ 7. On the Assistance to be derived from the Writings of the Greek 

Fathers in the Interpretation of the Scriptures - - 347 — 350 

§ 8. On Historical Circumstances — 

I. Order of the Different Books of Scripture - - 351 

II. Their Titles - - ibid. 

III. Their Authors - - - - - - 352 

IV. Their Dates - ibid. 

V. The Place where written - 353 

VI. Occasion on which they were written - 354 

VII. Antient Sacred and Profane History - - ibid. 

VIII, Chronology - - 356 

IX. Biblical Antiquities, including 

1. The Political and Ecclesiastical State of the Jews and other 

Nations mentioned in the Scriptures - ibid. 

2. Coins, Medals 3 and other antient Remains - - 357 

Cautions in the Investigation of Biblical Antiquities - 358 — -360 

3. Geography - - - - - 361 

4* Genealogy - - - ibid. 

5. Natural History ..... S61, 362 

6 Philosophical Sects and Learning - -* 362 

§ 9. On Commentaries . — 

I. Different Classes of Conimentatoirj - - « 362 



IT. Nature of Scholia - - - f 

III. Of Commentators, strictly so called - - - it 

IV Paraphrases - - S 

V. Collections of Observations on Holy Writ - - S 

VI. The Utility and Advantage of Commentaries - - ib 

VII. Design to be kept in View when consulting them 3 

VIII. Rules for consulting Commentators to the best Advantage - 356 — 3 



Chapter I. On the Intel pretation of the Figurative Lan- 
guage of Scripture - - - - - - 36 

Section I. General Observations on the Interpretation of Tropes 

and Figures ^ - - - - - - 371 — 3*1 

Section II. On the Interpretation of the Metonymies occurring 
m the Scriptures . 

Nature of a Metonymy - ----- 3 1 

I. Metonymy of the Cause - 379—31 

II. Metonymy of the Effect - - 31 

III. Metonymy of the Subject - - - 382 — 3( 

IV. Metonymy of the Adjunct in which the Adjunct is put for the 

Subject - - - - 384 — 3f 

Section III. On the Interpretation of Scriptiue Metaphors . 

Natuie of a Metaphoi — Souiceb of Sciiptme Metapliois 

I. The Works of Natuie 

1. Antliropopathy - 

2. Prosopopoeia 

II, The Occupations, Customs, and Arts of Life 

III. Sacred Topics, or Religion and Things connected with it 

IV. Sacred History - 

Section IV. On the Interpretation of Scripture Allegories . 

The Allegoiy defined. — Different Species of Allegory - - 39 

Rules for the Intel pretation ot Scripture Allegories - - - 393—39 

Section V. On the Interpretation of Scripture Parables. 

I. Natuie of a Pai able - - - - - 39 

II, Antiquity of this Mode of Instiuction - 40 

III Rules foi the Intel pretation of Parables - 400 — 40 

IV. Paiables, why used by Jesus Clnist - - 406, 40 

V. Remarks on the distinguishing Excellencies of Christ’s Parables, com- 
pared with the most eelebiated Fables of Antiquity - - 407—41 

Section VI. On Scripture Proveibs. 

I Nature of Proverbs. — Prevalence of this Mode of Instiuction - 4J 1 

II. Different Kinds of Proveibs - - - 41 

III. The Proveibs oeemnug m the New Testament, howto he interpreted - ibid 

Section VII. Concluding Observations on the Figurative Lan- 
guage of Scripture. 

I. Synechdoche - - - - - 41, 

II. Iiony - - - - - 41i 

III. Hyperbole - - - - - - 41' 

IV. Paronomasia - - - - - 411 

- 3S6, Sf 
9 9 




Chapter II. On the Interpretation of the Poetical Parts of 
Scripture . 

I. A large Portion of the Old Testament proved to be Poetical. . — Culti- 
vation of Poetry by the Hebrews - 419 — 421 

IX. The Sententious Parallelism, the Grand Characteristic of Hebrew 

Poetry. — Its Origin and Varieties - - - 421 — 424 

1 . Parallel Lines gradational - 424 — 426 

2. Parallel Lines antithetic - - - 426 

3. Parallel Lines constructive ... 427 — 429 

4. Parallel Lines introverted - - 429, 430 

III. The Poetical Dialect not confined to the Old Testament. — Reasons 

for expecting to find it in the New Testament - - 430, 431 

Proofs of the Existence of the Poetical Dialect there — 

1. Prom simple and direct Quotations of single Passages from 

the Poetical Parts of the Old Testament - - 432 

2 . From Quotations of different Passages, combined into one 

connected whole - - 432, 433 

3. From Quotations mingled with Original matter - - 433, 434 

IV. Original Parallelisms occurring in the New Testament, — 

1. Parallel Couplets - - - - 435 

2 . Parallel Triplets - - - - - - 435 

3. Quatrains - - 436 

4, 5. Stanzas of Five and Six Lines - 436, 437 

6. Stanzas of more than Six Parallel Lines - - - 438 

V. Other Examples of the Poetical Parallelism in the New Testament — 

1. Parallel Lines gradational - - - - 439 

2. The Epanodos - - - 440 

VI. Different kinds of Hebrew Poetry , — 

1. Prophetic Poetiy - - 441, 442 

2 Elegiac Poetiy - - - 443 

3. Didactic Poetry - - - - - 443 

4. Lyric Poetry - - - - - 443 

5. The Idyl ------ 443 

6 Dramatic Poetry - - - - - 443 

7. Acrostic or Alphabetical Poetry - 444 

VII, General Observations for better understanding the Poetical Compositions 

of the Sacred Poets - 445, 446 

Chapter III. On the Spiritual Interpretat ion of the Sciiplures , 

Section I. General Observations on the Spiritual Interpretation 
of the Scriptures - - 446 — 4.49 

Section II. Canons for the Spiritual Interpretation of Scripture, 

Section III. On the Interpretation of Types. 449 454 

I. Nature of a Type - 455 

II, Different Species of Types — 

1. Legal Types - 456 

2. Pi ophetical Types - - 457 

3. Historical Types - ----- 45*7 

IIL Rules for the Interpretation of Types - - 458 4gQ 

IV. Remarks on the Interpretation of Symbols - 46Q ^gg 

Chapter IV. On the Interpretation of the Scriptm e Pi ophecies . 

Section I. General Rules for ascertaining the Sense of the 

Prophetic Writings - - 462 468 

Section II. Observations on the Accomplishment of Prophecy in 
general - - - 468—472 

Section III. Observations on the Accomplishment of Prophecies 

concerning the Messiah m particular - - 473 475 


Chapter V. On the Doctunal Interpretation of Scripture 475 — 482 




Chapter VI. Moral Interpretation of Scripture. 

Section I. On the Interpretation of the Moral Parts of Scrip- 
ture - - 482 — 488 

Section II. On the Interpretation of the Promises and Threat - 
enings of Scripture - 489 — 492 

Chapter VII. On the Interpretation , and Mea?is of Har- 
monising Passages of Scripture 9 'which are alleged to be con- 

Section I. Seeming Contradictions m Historical Passages. 

§ 1. Seeming Contradictions in tlie different Circumstances related - 495 502 

§ 2. Apparent Contradictions from Things being related in a diiFeient Order 

by the Sacred Writers - 502 504 

§ 3. Apparent Contradictions! arising from Differences in Numbers - 504— 506 
§ 4. Apparent Contradictions in the relation of Events in one Passage! and 

References to them in another - - 507 

Section II. Apparent Contradictions in Chronology - 507— 511 

Section III. Apparent Contradictions between Piophecies and 
their Fulfilment ----- 512 — 514 

Section IV. Apparent Contradictions m Doctrine. 

§ 1 . Seeming Contradictions from a Mode of speaking, which, to our Appre- 
hensions, is not sufficiently clear - -51 4 — 516 

§ 2. Apparent Contradictions from tlic same Terms being used in different 

and even Contradictory Senses - - 516,517 

§ 3, Apparent Contradictions, in Points of Doctrine, arising from the dif- 
ferent Designs of the Sacred Writeis - - - -517,518 

§ 4. Apparent Contradictions, arising fiom the different Ages in which the 
Sacred Writers lived, and tlie different Degrees of Knowledge which they 
possessed - - - - - - 518, 519 

Section V. Seeming Contradictions to Morality - 519 — 534 

Section VI. Apparent Contradictions between the Sacred Writers 535 — 547 

Section VII. Seeming Inconsistencies between Sacred and Profane 

Writers - - 547 — 553 

Section VIII. Alleged Contradictions to Philosophy and the 

Nature of Things - 553 — 56C 

Chapter VIII. On the Iifeiential and Practical Reading 
of Script™ e. 

Section I. On the Inferential Reading of the Bible. 

I. Gcncial Ilules for the Deduction of Inferences - 561 5g/ 

II. Observations for ascertaining the Souices of Internal Inferences - 564, 5GI 

III, Observations for ascertaining the Sources of External Inferences - 5GG — 56* 

Section II. On the Practical Reading of Scripture - 568 — 574 

Bibliographical Appendix, containing a Concise Account of 
the Principal Editions if the Holy Scriptures, and of the Prin- 
cipal Philologers, Critics 9 and Commentators, who have elu- 
cidated the Text, History , and Antiquities of the Bible I— 322 

Bibliographical Index - - _ - 323—342 

Lately published by the Author of this Wotlc, 

BIBLE being an Anaitsis nr Abridgement of the present Work. In one laigu 
volume 12mo,j handsomely punted, and illustrated with Maps and other Engravings. 
Price 9s. 

ft tv b hare no hesitation in affirming, that it is m leality — wliat its title imports — a Compendious 
Introduction to the Study of the Bible It combines a multiplicity of subjects, yet methodically ai ranged , 
it iihnof vnt comnrehensive, touching upon most of the questions on which the less informed can desire 
« executed in a style simple, perspicuous, and unalifected. We therefore most 
earnestly rMomraend it to the youth of both sexes , also those who have not the tuno nor means ioi ctm- 
sulnnff Mr Horne's larger Treatise , to those who are commencing their biblical studies , to all, in short, 
who wish to read the Bible with seriousness and attention, as at once the shortest and most complete 
Manual in the English Language.”— Christian Remembrancer, February , 1827. 

« Of the r Compendious Introduction’ before us, as might have been expected, it may he affirmed, with 
truth that it preserves all that is most valuable in Mr Horne's more elaborate and voluminous Work , 
while* at the same time it can never supplant its distinguished piedecessor as a Book of Reference The 
Compendious Introduction is the cheapest work in tlic language on the subject of Biblical Criticism." — 
El angelical Machine, February , 1827 

« It is quite an acquisition, as an analysis of his large Work, and as bringing many of its important points 
before us? It would form an admirable text-book to any theological protessoi , and the general scholar 
will find it to his advantage to consult it, if he has not time to go into the multifarious details oi the 
Critical Introduction It is beautifully printed, contains a large quantity of matter, and the maps ami 
other illustrative engravings and vignettes are admirably executed ” — Cqngileuaiional Maqaziml, 
March, 1827 

<t To those who cannot afford to purchase Mr Horne’s larger Work, and even to those who possess it, Una 
vol um e wilL be found exceedingly valuable, as ail epitome of information, selected with immense labour 
from a large n umb er of resources ” — Home Missionary Magazine, Februai y, 1827 

ci We can cordially recommend it as a valuable compendium of information connected with the inter- 
pretation of Scripture" — Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, March , 3827 

« The contents of a library, condensed into a single volume ” — Gentleman’s Magazine, April, 1827 

« Celivrceitranalyse d’un ouvrage eu quatre volumes du mfime auteur, mtltulfc 'Introduction & 1 'Etude 
Critique et 1 la Science des Saintes Ecntures’ II est cent avee clartc et precision, et il limit eviter de 
longues et fastidieuses recherclies Ceux qui desirent connaitrc la vent£ touchnnt la Religion licvtiee 

E ourront le consulter avec fruit, les preuves do la Religion Clirdtienne s’y trouvent places dans un ineil- 
»ur ordre que dans beau coup d'ouvrages du interne genre, et sent accompagnces do document ct reflexions, 
que l’on ne trouve point ailleurs Ce volume contient un Appendice ct une Table dca Mati&rcs qui un 
reudent la lecture plus facile "—Reiue Encyclopedique, Jim, 1827, p (i70 

TIAN. Seventh Edition, collected and enlarged ; handsomely printed in 12mo. Piiee 

“ We recommend the Work, as an excellent manual for youth, and as a\ cry suitable present to persons, who 
may, under any circumstances, be placed in contact with the opposers ot revealed religion It is especially 
deservmg of notice, as refuting the very latest objections which have been devised, C'hribman Guardian, 
April, 1836. 

defended : and the Church of England vindicated from the Charge of Un chant able ness m 
retaining the Athanasian Creed. Second Edition, in one volume large 12rao. Piiee 

“ Mr Home's treatise is excellently adapted for convoying information to the young, for establishing 
them in the first great principles of their Christian laitli, and for satiblymg the laudable curiosity oi all 
who desire to know the scriptural grounds of their profession, and to give an answer and a defence to 
such as ask a reason of the hope that i& in them." -'Christian Remembrancer, or Churchman’s Biblical, 
Ecclesiastical, and Literary Miscellany, October, 1820 

Tenets of the Chuich of Rome as exlubiled in her accredited Formularies, contiastod 
with the Holy Scriptures. A New Edition, I2mo Pirne I?. 

ff Mr Hartwell Home has compressed a large portion of valuable information into a very narrow com- 
pass "—British Critic and Theol Rev July, 1827 

Mr H might, in imitation of Leslie, have called this little publication * A Short Method with tho 
Catholics ’ His method is, in each section, to show in Scripture language what arc the tenets of Mmplmc, 
ana then contrast them with the tenets oi Popery — ami n thorough contrast they are His arguments ara 
founded on facts against which there can be no appeal ” Home Missionary Magazine, March, 1827. 

*** Ten Thousand Copies of this little Manual have been distributed in Ireland, at a very low puce, at 
the expense of some gentlemen who take an interest in the moral and ichgious welfare ot dial country. 

London; Printed for T. Cadell, , Strand , W. Blackwood, Edinbuigh, and It. Milhhcn, Dublin 







C'Iuttcism:, in the more extensive sense of the term, is the art of 
forming a correct judgment concerning any object proposed to our 
consideration. In a more restricted sense, particularly with reference 
to the works of antient authors, it was fashionable, for a considerable 
time, among the literati on the continent of Europe, to employ this 
term as indicating merely that kind of labour and judgment, which 
was employed in settling the genuineness of the whole or part of the 
text of any author. But the term is now generally used in a much 
more enlarged sense, viz, to indicate any kind of labour or judgment, 
which is occupied either in the literary history of the text itself or in 
settling or explaining it. To the former the German philosophers 
have given the appellation of lower criticism „■ while the latter has been 
tei med highei ct'iticism , because its objects and results are of a much 
more important nature. 1 In this latter sense, the term is taken in 
the present volume, which is devoted to the consideration of the 
Criticism and Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. 

The first part, which treats on Scripture Criticism, will be 
found to comprise a concise account of the languages in which the 
Sacred Volume is written; a sketch of its literary history, and of the 
several divisions and subdivisions of it, which have obtained at different 
times. The nature of various readings, and the means of determin- 
ing genuine readings, will next be considered, together with the 
quotations from the Old Testament in the New, and the nature and 
different kinds of Harmonies of the Old and New Testament. 

In the second part the principles and subsidiary means of Scrip- 
ture Interpretation are discussed, together with the application of 
them to the exposition of the Sacred Volume, both exegetical and 

1 Muntiuglie, Brevis Expositio Criticeft Vet. Focd. pp. I, 2. Juhn’s Dissertations, 
by Piof. Stuart, pp. (J4, GS, Cleric i Aih Critica, pp. 1, 2, 

VOL. II. *B 

On the Original Languages ofS&iptw e. [Part I. Ch. 





A KNOWLEDGE of the original languages of Scripture is of 
the utmost importance, and indeed absolutely necessary, to him who 
is desirous of ascertaining the genuine meaning of the Sacred Vo- 
lume. Happily, the means of acquiring these languages are now 
so numerous and easy of access, that the student, who wishes to 
derive his knowledge of the Oracles of God from pure sources, can 
be at no loss for guides to direct him in this delightful pursuit. 



Introductory Remarks on the Oriental or Shemitish Languages . — 

I. Origin of the Hebiew Language . — II. Historical Sketch of this 

Language . — III. And of its Characters . — IV. Of the Vowel Points. 

cs The languages of Western Asia, though differing in respect to 
dialect, are radically the same, and have been so, as far back as any 
historical records enable us to trace them. Palestine, Syria, Phoeni- 
cia, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Arabia, and also Ethiopia are reckoned 
as the countries-, where the languages commonly denominated Orz- 
ental have been spoken. Of late, many critics have rejected the ap- 
pellation c Oriental as being too comprehensive, and substituted 
that of i ShemitishJ a denominative derived from Shem. To this, 
however, objections of a similar nature may be urged ; for no incon- 
siderable portion of those, who spoke the languages in question, were 
not descendants of Shem. It is matter of indifference which ap- 
pellation is used, if it be first defined. 

The Oriental Languages may be divided into three principal 
dialects, viz. the Aramaean, the Hebrew, and the Arabic. 

1. The Aramaean, spoken in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia 

or Chaldaea, is subdivided into the Syriac and Chaldee dialects ; or, 
ES somet imes called, the East and West Aramsean. 

2. 'Die Hebrew or Canaanitish (Isa. xix. 18.) was spoken in 
Palestine, and probably with little variation in Phoenicia, and the 
Phoenician colonies, as at Carthage and other places. 

L Sect. I.] On the Hebrew Language . 


3. The Arabic, to which the Ethiopic bears a special resemblan 
has, in modem times, a great variety of dialects, as a spoken h 
guage, and is spread over a vast extent of country. But, so far 
we are acquainted with its former state, it appears more antiently 
have been principally limited to Arabia and Ethiopia. 

The Arabic is very rich in forms and words; the Syriac, so 
as it is yet known, is comparatively limited in both ; the Hebr 
holds a middle place between them, both as to copiousness of woi 
and variety of forms.” 1 

Besides the preceding dialects, there are many slighter variatic 
of language, sometimes distinguished from the general names 
local appellations. Thus, the Ephraimites could not distingu 
between the letters D (s) and (sh), as the Hebrews did, in spet 
ing : hence the Ephraimites pronounced Szbboleth instead of Sh 
boleth. (Judges xii. 6.) Nehemiah was indignant, that part 
his countrymen should speak the language of Ashdod. (Neh. x 

The Samaritan dialect appears to be composed (as one mig 
expect, see 2 Kings xvii.) of Aiamaean and Hebrew: and t 
slighter varieties of Arabic are as numerous as the provinces whc 
the language is spoken. 

I. Origin of the Hebrew Language. 

Of all the Oriental Languages, the Hebrew bears marks of bei 
the most antient t in this language the Old Testament is wntte 
with the exception of a few words and passages that are in t 
Chaldacan dialect. a According to some critics, it derived its liar 
from Heber, one of the descendants of Shem (Gen. x. 21- 25. 
14. 16, 17.): but other learned men are of opinioii that it is c 
rived from the root (ab<?r), to pass over , whence Abraham w 
denominated the Hebrew (Gen. xiv, 13.), having passed over t 
river Euphrates to come into the land of Canaan. This last oj 
nion appears to be best founded, from the general fact that t 
most antient names of nations were appellative. cc But, whatev 
extent of meaning was attached to the appellation Hebrew , befc 
the time of Jacob, it appears afterwards to have been limited or 
to his posterity, and to be synonymous with Israelite . 

The origin of the Hebrew Language must be dated farther ba 
than the period, to which we can trace the appellation Hebrew. 
is plain, from the names of persons and places in Canaan, th 
wherever Abraham sojourned, he found a language in which 
could easily converse, viz. the Hebrew or Phoenician language 
That this was originally the language of Palestine, appears plain fre 
the names of nations being appellative, and from other facts in resp< 
to the formation of this dialect. Thus, the West is, in Hebrew £ 
(ykm) s which means the sea , that is, towards the Mediterranean S 
As the Hebrew has no other proper word for west) so it must 

1 Stuart’s Hebiew Gmmmai, pp, 1, 2. 

- Besides some Chaldee woids occasionally inserted in the historical and piophet 
books, after the Israelites became acquainted with the Babylonians, the following pasw 
of the Old Testament aie wnttcn m the Chaldee dialect, -viz. Jer. x. 11. Dan, ii, A 
the end of chap. vii. and Ezraiv. 6. to vi. 19. and vii. IS- to 17. 

B 2 


On the Original Languages of Scripture . [Part I. Ch. 

evident that the language) in its distinctive and peculiar foims, must 
have been formed in Palestine . 1 

The Jewish Rabbins, Jonathan the author of the Chaldee Para- 
phrase, Solomon Jarchi, and Aben-Ezra, have affirmed that Hebrew 
was the primitive language spoken in Paradise ; and their opinion 
has been adopted by Origen, Jerome, Augustine, and some other 
fathers, as well as by some modern critics and philologers. Huet, 
however, and the majority of modern critics, are of opinion, that 
the language spoken by Adam perished in the confusion of 
tongues at Babel. But it seems highly probable, that if the original 
parents of mankind were placed in Western Asia, they spoke sub- 
stantially the language which has for more than fifty centuries per- 
vaded that country . 2 Without adopting, therefore, the hypothesis 
just stated, which rests only on bare probabilities, we may observe 
that the Hebrew is the most antient of all the languages in the 
world; at least we know of none that is older: that it is not im- 
probable that it was the general language of men at the dispersion ; 
and, however it might have subsequently been altered and improved, 
that it appears to be the original of all the languages, or rather 
dialects, which have since arisen m the world . 3 

Various circumstances, indeed, combine to prove that Hebrew 
is the original language, neither improved nor debased by foreign 
idioms. The words of which it is composed are very short, and 
admit of very little flexion, as may be seen on reference to any 
Hebrew grammar or lexicon. The names of persons and places are 
descriptive of their nature, situation, accidental circumstances, &c. 
The names of brutes express theii nature and properties more sig- 
nificantly and more accurately than any other known language in 
the world. The names also of various antient nations are of He- 
brew origin, being derived from the sons or grandsons of Mhem, 
Ham, and Japhet; as the Assyrians from Ashur; the Elamites from 
Elam; the Aramaeans from Aram; the Lydians from Lud; the 
Cimbrians or Cimmerians from Gomer ; the Medians from Madai, 
the son of Japbet; the Ionians from Javan, &c . 4 Fuillier, the 
names given to the heathen deities suggest an additional proof of 
the antiquity and originality of the Hebrew language; thus, Japctus 
is derived from Japhet; Jove, from Jehovaii; Vulcan, from Tubal- 
Cain, who first discovered the use of iron and brass, &c. &c. Lastly, 
the traces of Hebrew which are to be found in very many other 
languages, and which have been noticed by several learned men, 
afford another argument in favour of its antiquity and priority. 
These vestiges are particularly conspicuous in the Chaldee, Syriac, 
Arabic, Persian, Phoenician, and other languages spoken by the 
people who dwelt nearest to Babylon, where the first division of 
languages took place . 5 

Heb. Gram. p. 5- 

* Hast, Demonstr. Evang. Prop. IV. c. 13. Alber, Hcrmeneut, Vet, Tt*t. tom. i. 
p* 321. Sthart’s Heb. Giarn, p 6. 

3 Dr, 0r, Sharpe’s Dissertations on the Origin of Languages, &c. pp* 22, ft svt 7. 

1 4 Grotins de Ventate, lib. i. sect. 16. Walton’s Prolegomena to the London Poly- 
glott, prol, m. § 6. (p, 76. ed. Dathii.) 5 Walton, Prol. iii. § 7, 8. (pp. 76, 77.) 

I. Sect. L] 

On the Hebrew Language . 

The knowledge of the Hebrew language was diffused very wi 
by the Phoenician merchants, who had factories and colonie! 
almost every coast of Europe and Asia; that it was identically 
same as was spoken in Canaan, or Phoenicia, is evident fron 
being used by the inhabitants of that country from the timi 
Abraham to that of Joshua, who gave to places mentioned in the 
Testament, appellations which aiepure Hebrew; such are, ICiii 
scpher, or the city of books, and Kinath-sannah, or the city of le 
vig. (Josh. xv. 15. 49.) Another proof of the identity of the 
languages arises fiom the circumstance of the Hebrews conver 
with the Canaanites without an interpreter; as the spies sent 
Joshua with Rahab (Josh, ii.); the ambassadors sent by the Gibi 
ites to Joshua (Josh. ix. 3 — 25.), &c. But a still stronger proc 
the identity of the two languages is to be found in the fragment 
the Punic tongue which occur in the writings of antient auth 
That the Carthaginians (Poem) derived their name, origin, 
language from the Phoenicians, is a well-known and authentic 
fact; and that the latter sprang from the Canaanites might easil; 
shown from the situation of their country, as well as from t 
manners, customs, and ordinances. Not to cite the testimonie 
profane authors on this point, which have been accumulated 
Bishop Walton, we have sufficient evidence to prove that they i 
considered as the same people, in the fact of the Phoenicians 
Canaanites being used promiscuously to denote the inhabitant 
the same country. Compare Exod, vi. 15. with Gen. xlvi. 10. 
Exod. xvi. 33. with Josh. v. 12., in which passages, for the Hel 
words translated Canaanitish and land of Canaan , the Septua 
reads Phoenician and the country of Phoenicia. 

II. Historical Sketch of the Hebrew Language, 

The period from the age of Moses to that of David has 1 
considered the golden age of the Hebrew language, which decl 
m purity from that time to the reign of Hezekiah or Manasseh, 1 
mg received several foreign woidb from the commercial and poll 
intercourse of the Jews and Israelites with the Assyrians and B; 
lonians. This period has been termed the silver age of the Plel 
language. In the interval between the reign of Hezekiah and 
Babylonish captivity, the puiity of the language was neglected, 
so many foreign words were introduced into it, that this period 
not inaptly been designated its hon age. During the seventy yi 
captivity, though it does not appear that the Hebrews entirely 
their native tongue, yet it underwent so considerable a change i 
their adoption of the vernacular languages of the countries w 
they had resided, that afterwards, on their return from exile, 
spoke a dialect of Chaldee mixed with Hebrew words. On 
account, it was, that, when the Hebrew Scriptures were reac 
was found necessary to interpret them to the people in the Chald 
language; as, when Ezra the scribe brought the book of the la 
Moses before the congregation, the Levites are said to have ca 
the people to understand the law, because they read in the boot 
the law of God \ distinctly , and gave the sense, and caused t 

b 3 


On the Original Languages of Scripture, [Part I. Ch. 

to understand the reading (Neb. viii. 8. 1 ). Some time after 
the return from the great captivity, Hebrew ceased to be spoken 
altogether : though it continued to be cultivated and studied, by the 
priests and Levites, as a learned language, that they might be enabled 
to expound the law and the prophets to the people, who, it appears 
from the New Testament, were well acquainted with their general 
contents and tenor; this last-mentioned period has been called the 
leaden age of the language. 2 “ How long the Hebrew was retained, 

both in writing and conversation ; or in writing, after it ceased to 
be the language of conversation, it is impossible to determine. The 
coins, stamped in the time of the Maccabees, are all the oriental 
monuments we have, of the period that elapsed between the latest 
canonical writers, and the advent of Christ; and the inscriptions on 
these are. in Hebrew. At the time of the Maccabees, then, Hebrew 
was probably understood, at least, as the language of books : per- 
haps, in some measure, also, among the better informed, as the lan- 
guage of conversation. But soon after this, the dominion of the 

Seleucidae, in Syria, over the Jewish nation, uniting with the former 
influence of the Babylonish captivity, in promoting the Aramaean 
dialect, appears to have destroyed the remains of proper Hebrew, 
as a living language, and to have universally substituted, in its stead, 
the Hebraeo-Aramaean, as it was spoken, in the time of our Saviour. 
Prom the time when Hebrew ceased to be vernacular, down to the 
present day, a portion of this dialect has been preserved in the Old 
Testament. It has always been the subject of study among learned 
Jews. Before and at the time of Christ, there vrere flourishing Jewish 
academies at Jerusalem ; especially under Hillel and Shammai. 
After Jerusalem was destroyed, schools were set up in various places, 
but particularly they flourished at Tiberias, until the death of li. 
Judah, surnamed Hakkodesh or the Holy , the author of the Mishna; 
about A. d. 230. Some of his pupils set up other schools iu Baby- 
lonia, which became the rivals of these. The Babylonish academies 
flourished until near the tenth centuiy.” 3 Froin the academies at 
Tiberias and in Babylonia, we have received the Targums, the Tal- 
mud, the Masora (of all which an account will be found m the course 
of the present volume), and the written vowels and accents of the 
Hebrew language. The Hebrew of the Talmud and of the Rabbins 
has a close affinity with the later Hebrew. 

III. Antiquity of the Hebrew Characters. 

The present Hebrew Characters, or Letters, are twenty-two in 

1 It is worthy of remark that the above practice exists at the present time, union'' ilm 

S: * Ts her r\ hi *■ ir s 

together wuh the Hebrew Text. (See Dr. Pinkerton’s Letter, in the Appendix to the 
Thirteenth Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society, p, 76.) A similar practice 
ob ams among the Syrian Christians at Travancore, in the Eait Indies, whSi I the AW me 


Int.™ a ? U mL 1 V£*£S'b 8 ' 1 p 9 , 7 J S T?r i r S Le “ 0n ’ ’**■** J^n, 

3 Stuart’s Heb. Guim, p. 12, 

I. Sect, jlj 

Un the tteorew ijanguage. 

number, ancl of a square form : but the antiquity of these letters is 
a point that has been most severely contested by many learned men. 
From a passage in Eusebius’s Chronicle 1 , and another in Jerome 2 , 
it was inferred by Joseph Scaligcr, that Ezra, when he reformed the 
Jewish church, transcribed the antient characters of the Hebrews 
into the square letters of the Chaldaeans : and that this was done for 
the use of those Jews, who, being born during the captivity, knew 
no other alphabet than that of the people among whom they had 
been educated. Consequently, the old character, which we call the 
Samaritan, fell into total disuse. This opinion Scaliger supported 
by passages from both the Talmuds, as well as from rabbinical 
writers, in which it is expressly affirmed that such characters were 
adopted by Ezra. But the most decisive confirmation of this point 
is to be found in the antient Hebrew coins, which were struck before 
the captivity, and even previously to the revolt of the ten tribes. The 
characters engraven on all of them are manifestly the same with the 
modern Samaritan, though with some trifling variations in their 
forms, occasioned by the depredations of time. These coins, whether 
shekels or half shekels, have all of them, on one side, the golden 
manna-pot (mentioned in Exod. xvi. 32 , 33 .), and on its mouth, or 
over the top of it, most of them have a Samaritan Aleph, some an 
Aleph and Sclnn, or other letters, with this inscription, The Shclcel of 
Israel , in Samaritan diameters. On the opposite side is to be seen 
Aaron’s rod with almonds, and in the same letters this inscription, 
Jerusalem the holy. Other coins are extant with somewhat different 
inscriptions, but the same characters are engraven on them all.® 

The opinion originally produced by Scaliger, and thus decisively 
corroborated by coins, has been adopted by Casaubon, Vossius, 
Grotius, Bishop Walton, Louis Cappel, Dr. Prideuux, and other 
eminent biblical critics and plnlologers, and is now generally re- 
ceived : it was, however, very strenuously though unsuccessfully 
opposed by the younger Buxlorf, who endeavoured to prove, by a 
variety of passages from rabbinical writers, that both the square and 
the Samaritan characters were antionlly used; the present square 
character being that m which the tables of the law, and the copy depo- 
sited m the ark, were written ; and the other characters being employed 
in the copies of the law which were made for private and common 
use, and m civil affairs in general ; and that, alter the captivity, 
Ezra enjoined the former to be used by the Jews on all occasions, 
leaving the latter to the Samaritans and apostates. Independently, 
however, of the strong evidence against BuxtorPs hypothesis, which 
is afforded by the antient Hebrew coins, when we consider the impla- 
cable enmity that subsisted between the Jews and Samaritans, is it 
likely that the one copied from the other, or that the former preferred, 
to the beautiful letters used by their ancestors, the rude and inelegant 
characters of their most detested rivals ? And when the vast dif- 
ference between the Clmldee (or square) and the Samaritan letters^ 

J Sub anno 4710, $ Priuf, in 1 lleg, 

3 Walton, Pml in. §29-37. (pp. 103— 125.) Cftvpzov, Criliea Sacm, up, 225—211, 
nutier, Criticfl Sai*ia T pp, 111—127. 

B 4« 


- On the Original Languages of Scripture . [Tart I. Cli. 

with respect to convenience and beauty, is calmly considered, it 
must be acknowledged that they never could have been used at the 
same time. After all, it is of no great moment which o( these, or 
whether either of them, were the original characters, since it does 
not appear that any change of the words has arisen from the manner 
of writing them, because the Samaritan and Hebrew 1 entateuchs 
almost alvvays agree, notwithstanding the lapse of so many ages. 
It is most probable that the form of these characters has varied at 
different periods : this appears from the direcL testimony of Mont- 
faucon 1 * 3 , and is implied m Dr, Kenmcott’s making the characters, 
in which manuscripts are written, one test of their age. 15 It is, how- 
ever, certain that the Chaldee or square character was the common 
one : as in Matt. v. 8. the yod is referred to as the smallest letter in 
the alphabet. It is highly probable that it was the common cha- 
racter, when the Septuagint version was made \ because the depart- 
ures in the Hebrew text from that version, so far as they have 
respect to the letters, can mostly be accounted for, on the ground, 
that the square characters were then used, and that the final letters 
which vary from the medial or initial form, were then wanting . i] 

IV. Antiquity of the Hebrew Vowel Points. 

But however interesting these inquiries may be m a philological 
point of view, it is of far greater importance to be satisfied con- 
cerning the much litigated, and yet undecided, question respecting 
the antiquity of the Hebrew points ; because, unless the student has 
determined for himself, after a matin e investigation, he cannot with 
confidence apply to the study of this sacred language. Tlnee opi- 
nions have been offered by learned men on this subject. By some, 
the origin of the Hebiew vowel points is maintained to be coeval 
with the Hebrew language itself: while otheis assert them to have 
been first introduced by Ezra after the Babylonish captivity, when 
he compiled the canon, transcribed the books into the present Chal- 
dee characters, and restored the purity of the Hebrew text. A third 
hypothesis is, that they were invented, about five hundred years 
after Christ, by the doctors of the school of Tiberias, for the purpose 
of marking and establishing the genuine pronunciation, for the con- 
venience of those who were learning the Hebrew tongue* This 
opinion, first announced by Rabbi Elias Levita in the beginning of 
the sixteenth century, has been adopted by Cappel, Calvin, Luther, 
Casaubon, Scaliger, Masclef, Erpenius, Houbigant, L’ Ad vocal, 
Bishops Walton, Hare, and Lowtb, Dr. Kennicott, Dr. Geddes, 
and other eminent critics, British and foreign, and is now generally 
received, although some few writers of respectability continue stre- 
nuously to advocate their antiquity. The Arcanum Punctationh 
Revelatum of Cappel was opposed by Buxtorf in a treatise Be Pune - 
tonm Vocalnm Antiquitat % by whom the controversy was almost 
exhausted. We shall briefly state the evidence on both sides. 

1 Hexapla Origenis, tom. i. pp, 22, et seq. 

8 Dissertation on the Hebrew Text, vol, i, pp. Sio 314.* 

3 Stuart's Hebrew Grammar, p, JG. 

I. Sect I.] 


On the Hebrew Language > 

That the vowel points are of modern date, and of human invert- 
tion 3 the anti-pun ctists argue from, the following considerations : 

1. “ The kindred, Shemitish languages antiently had no written vowels. 
The most antient Estrangclo and Kufish characters, that is, the antient 
characters of the Syrians and Arabians, were destitute of vowels. The 
Palmyrene inscriptions, and nearly all thePhenician ones, are destitute of 
them. Some of the Maltese inscriptions, however, and a few of tile Phe- 
nician have marks, which probably were intended as vowels. The Koran 
was confessedly destitute of them, at first. The punctuation of it occa- 
sioned great dispute among Mohammedans. In some of the older Syriac 
wntings, is found a single pomL, which by being placed in different posi- 
tions in regai d to words, served as a diacritical sign. The pi esent vowel 
system of the Syrians was introduced so late as the time of Theophilus 
and Jacob of Edcssa. (Cent, vui.) The Aiabic vowels were adopted, 
soon after the Koran was written, but tlieir other diacritical marks did 
not come into use, until they were introduced by Ibn Mokla, (about a. id- 
900,) together with the Nisln chaiacter, now in common use. 1 ' 1 

2 The Samaritan letters, which (we h ive already seen) weie the same 
with the Hebrew characters before the captivity, have no points ; nor 
are there any vestiges whatever of vowel points to be traced either in 
the shekels stiuck by the kings of Israel, or in the Samaritan Pentateuch. 
The words have always been lead b3 r the aid of the four letters Aleph, 
Pie, Vau, and Jod, which aic called malres lectioms , or niotheis of reading. 

3. The copies of the Scupturcs used in the Jewish synagogues to the 
present time, and which aic accounted particularly sacied, are constantly 
wnttcn without points, or any distinctions of verses whatever : a practice 
that could never have been intioduced, nor would it have been so reli- 
giously followed, if vowel points had been coeval with the langunge, 
or of divine authority. To this fact we may add, that in many of the 
oldest and best manuscripts, collated and examined by Dr. Kennicott, 
either there arc no points at all, or they arc evidently a late addition ; 
and that all the antient various readings, marked by the Jews, regard 
only the letters , not one of them relates to the vowel points, which 
could not have happened if these had been in use. 

4 Rabbi Elias Levita ascribes the invention of vowel points to the 
doctors of Tiberias, and lias confiuncd the fact by the authoiity of the 
most learned rabbins. 

5. The antient Cabbalists 2 draw all tlieir mysteries from the letters; 
but none from the vowel points ; which they could not have neglected if 
they had been acquainted with them. And hence it is concluded, that the 
points were notin existence when the Cabbalistic intcipretations weiemade- 

6. Although the Talmud contains the determinations of the Jewish 
doctors concerning many passages of the law, it is evident that the points 

i Stuart's Ilubiew Gmmniai, p. 19 . 

" The Cabbalists wore a set of labbinical doetois among the Jewa, who derived their 
name from tlieir studying the Cabbala, a inys tenons kind of science, comprising mystical 
interpretations of Scripture, and metaphysical speculations concerning the Deity and other 
beings, which arc found m Jewish writings, and are bald Lo have been handed down by a 
secret tradition A am the eaihest ages. I 3 y considering the ntimerul powers of the letters 
of the sacred text, and changing and tiansposmg them in viuious ways, according to the 
rules of then ait, the CabbaliHts extracted senses from the sneied oracles, very rlill'ei ent 
from those which thu expressions seemed natuinlly to import, or which weie even intended 
by their inspired authois. Some learned men have imagined, thqt the Cabbalists tuoso 
soon alter the time of Ezia; but the truth is, that no Cabbalistic writings me extant but 
what are pasterim to the destruction of the second temple For an entertaining account 
of the Cabbala, and of the Cobbalistical philosophy, sec Mi. Allen's Modern Judaism, 
pp. GG— P'l., or Di. Enlield’s Histoiy of Philosophy, vol. ii. pp. 190 — 221. 


L-ITtlU A. UJ, 

On the Original Languages oj bcnjmuc. 

were not affixed to the text when the Talmud was composed ; because 
there are several disputes concerning the sense of passages of the law, 
which could not have been controverted if the points luid then been in 
existence. Besides, the vowel points are ncvei mentioned, though the 
fairest opportunity for noticing them offered itself, if they had really then 
been in use. The compilation of the Talmud was not finished until the 

sixth century. 1 . 

7. The antient various leadings, called Ken and Ketib, or Khclibh, 
(which weie collected a short time befoie the completion of the Talmud,) 
relate entnely to consonants and not to vowel points , yet, if these had ex- 
isted in manuscript at the time the Ken and Khctib were collected, it is 
obvious that some reference would directly or indirectly have been nude to 
them. The silence, therefore, of the collectors of these vaiious readings 
is a clear proof of the non-existence of vowel points in their time. 

8. The antient versions, — for instance, the Chaldee paraplnases of 
Jonathan and Onkelos, and the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmuehus, 
and Theodotion, but especially the Septuagmt version, — all read the text, 
in many passages, m senses diffeicnt from that which the points determine 
them to mean. Whence it is evident, that if the points had then been 
known, pointed manuscripts would have been followed as the most cor- 
rect; but as the authors of those versions did not use them', it is a plain 
proof that the points were not then in being. 

9. The antient Jewish writeis themselves are totally silent concerning 
the vowel points, which suiely would not have been the case if they had 
been acquainted with them. Much stiess indeed has been laid upon the 
books of Zohai and Bahir, but these have been proved not to have been 
known for a thousand yeais after the biith of Christ. Even Buxtorf him- 
self admits, that the book Zohar could not have been written till after the 
tenth century ; and the rabbis Gedaliah and Zachet confess that it was not 
mentioned before the yeai 1290, and that it presents internal evidence that 
it is of a much later date than is pietended. It is no uncommon practice 
of the Jews to publish books of recent date under the names of old writei s, 
in order to rendei their authority lespectable, and even to altci and inter- 
polate antient writers in order Lo subserve then own views. 

10. Equally silent are the antient fatheis of the Christian church, Origen 
and Jerome. In some fragments still extant, of Ongen's vast biblical 
work, intitled the Hexapla (of which some account is given in a subse- 
quent page), we have a specimen of the mannei in which Hebrew was 
pronounced m the thud century; and which, it appears, was widely dif- 
ferent from that which results fiom adopting the MasoreLic reading, 
Jerome also, m various parts of his works, where he notices the different 
pronunciations of Hebrew words, treats 07ily of the Icltcts, and nowhere 
mentions the points, which he surely would have done, had they been 
found in the copies consulted by him. 

11- The letters n> 1> 1 (Aleph, He, Vau, and Yod), upon the plan of 
the Masorites, are termed quiescent , because, accoiding to them, (hey 
have no sound. At otliei Limes, these same letters indicate a variety of 
sounds, as the fancy of these critics has been pleased to distinguish them 
by points. This single circumstance exhibits the whole doctrine of points 
as the baseless fabric of a vision* To suppress altogether, oi to lender 
insignificant, a radical letter of any word, in order to supply its place by 
an arbitrary dot or a fetitious mark , is an invention fraught with the 
grossest absurdity , 2 

' For unaccouat of die Talmud, sec PaitIL Book I. Chap. II. But. I. § o', 
a Wilson’s Elements of Hebiew Grammai, p. 45, * 7 

I. Sect L] 


On the Hebrew Language* 

12. Lastly, as \hcfust vestiges of the points that can be traced afyp to be 
found in the writings of Rabbi Ben Asher, president of the western school, 
and of Rabbi Ben Naplithali, chief of the eastern school, who flourished 
about the middle of the tenth century, we are justified in assigning that as 
the epoch when the system of vowel points was established. 

Such are the evidences on which the majority of the learned rest 
their convictions of the modern date of the Hebrew points : it now 
remains, that we concisely notice the arguments adduced by the 
Buxtorfs and their followers, for the antiquity of these points. 

1. From the nature of all languages it is uiged lliat they require vowels, 
which are in a inannei the soul of words. This is l caddy conceded as an 
indisputable truth, but it is no proof of the antiquity of the vowel points : 
for the Iiebicw language always had and still has vowels, independent of 
the points, without winch it may be read, Origen, who tianscribed the 
Hcbiew Scriptures in Greek characters in his Ilexapla, did not invent 
new vowels to express the vowels absent in Plebiew words, neither did 
Jerome, who also expic&scd many Hcbiew words and passages in Latin 
characters. The Samaritans, who used the same alphabet as the Hebrews, 
read without the vowel points, employing the mattes leciionis , Aloph, lie 
or Iiheth, Jod, Oin, and Vau (a, e, i, o, u), for vowels ; and the Hebrew 
may be read in the same manner, with the assistance of these letters, by 
supplying them wheic thej' arc not cxpiessed, agreeably to the modern 
practice of the Jews, whose Talmud and rabbinical commentators, as well 
as the copies of the law preserved in the synagogues, are to this day read 
Without vowel points. 

2. It is objected that the reading of Hebrew would be rendered very 
uncertain and difficult withouL the points, after the language ceased lo he 
spoken* To this it is replied, that even after Hcbiew ceased to be a 
vernacular language, its tiue reading might have been continued among 
learned men to whom it was familiar, and also m their schools, which flou- 
rished befoie the invention of the points. And thus daily practice in 
reading, as well as a consideration of the context* would enable them not 
only to fix the meaning of doubtful words, hut also to supply the vowels 
which were deficient, and likewise to fix wouls to one detcuninate leading, 
Cappel and after him Masclef a , lmve given some general i ulus for the ap- 
plication of the matte* Icctwms, to enable us Lu road Hebi cw williout points. 

3. “ Many PiotesLant writers have been led lo support the authority of 
the points, by the supposed uncertainty of the unpointed text; which 
would oblige us to follow the direction of the church of Romo, This ar- 
gument, however, makes against those who would suppose Kara to have 
introduced the points . for in that ease, from Moses to his day the text 
being unpointed must have been obscure and uncertain ; and if this wore 
not so, why should not the unpointed text have remained intelligible and 
unambiguous after his Lime, as it had done before it ? This argument, 
moreover, giants what they who use it arc not aware of: for if it be allowed 
that the unpoinied text is ambiguous and unccituin, and would oblige us 
in consequence to lecur to the church of Rome, the Roman Catholics 
may prove — at least with every appearance of truth — that it 1ms always 
been unpointed, and that, therefoie, wo must have recourse to the church 
to explain it. Many writers of that communion have had the candour Lo 
acknowledge, that the unjjointed Hebrew text can be read and nuclei, * blood 
like the Samaritan text j lor although several words in Ilebiew may, when 

1 Aruumm Punctalionis revelation, lib* I. c. 1H 
G GinmnuitiCft Ilcbuicu, vol. i» enp 1. J iv* 


On the Original Languages of Scripture. [Part L Ch. 

separate, admit of different interpretations, the context usually fixes their 
meaning with precision > ; or, if it ever fail to do so, and leave their mean- 
ing still ambiguous, recourse may be had to the interpretations of antient 
translators or commentators. We must likewise remember, that the Ma- 
sorites, in affixing points to the text, did not do so according to their own 
notions how it ought to be read; they followed the received reading of 
their day, and thus fixed unalterably that mode of reading which was au- 
thorised among them; and, therefore, though we reject these points as 
their invention, and consider that they never were used by any inspired 
writer, yet it by no means follows, that for the interpretation of Scripture we 
must go to a supposed infallible church ; for we acknowledge the divine 
original of what the points express, namely, the sentiments conveyed by 
the letters and words of the sacred text.” 1 2 

4. In further proof of the supposed antiquity of vowel points, some 
passages have been adduced from the Talmud, in which accents and verses 
are mentioned. The fact is admitted, but it is no proof of the existence 
of points; neither is mention of certain words in the Masoretic notes, as 
being irregularly punctuated, any evidence of their existence or antiquity : 
for the Masora was not finished by one author, nor in one century, but 
that system of annotation was commenced and prosecuted by various 
Hebrew critics through several ages. Hence it happened that the lutLer 
Masorites, having detected mistakes in their predecessors (who had 
adopted the mode of pronouncing and reading used in their day), were 
unwilling to alter such mistakes, but contented themselves with noting- 
particular words as having been irregularly and improperly pointed. 
These notes, therefore, furnish no evidence of the existence of points be- 
fore the time of the first compilers of the Masora. 3 

The preceding are the chief arguments usually urged for and 
against the vowel points : and from an impartial consideration of 
them, the retider will be enabled to judge for himself. The weight 
of evidence, we apprehend, will be found to determine against them : 
nevertheless, “ the points seem to have their uses, and these not in- 
considerable ; and to have this use among others — that, as many of 
the Hebrew letters have been corrupted since the invention of the 
points, and as the points subjoined originally to the true letters have 
been in many of these places regularly preserved, these points will 
frequently concur in proving the truth of such corruptions, and will 
point out the method of correcting them.” 4 

A Bibliographical Account of the principal editions of the He- 
brew Bible will be found in the Appendix to this volume, pp.4— 10., 
and of- the principal Hebrew Grammars and Lexicons, both mih and 
mthout points, in pp. 158 — 167. 

1 Thus the English verb to skin has two opposite meanings ; but the context will 
always determine which it bears in any passage where it occurs. 

2 Hamilton's Introd. to the Study of the Hebrew Scriptures, pp. 44, 45, 

a Walton Pro!, iii. §§ 38—56. (pp. 125—170.) Carpzov, Crit. Sacr. Vet. Test, parti. 
c.v. sect. vii. pp. 242— 274. Pfeiffer, Critica Sacra, cap. iv. sect, ii. (Op. pp. 70*1—711,) 
Gerard’s Institutes, pp. 32—38. Jahn, Introd. ad Vet. Fcedus, pp. 129—131. Bauer, 
On$ica Sacra, pp. ]2S— 141. Prideaux's Connection, vol. i, parti, book 5. pp, 347 — 

j®* edition. Bishop Marsh (Lectures, partii. pp. 136— 140.) has enumerated the 
principal treatises for and against the vowel points; some of which are also specified in 
pp. 157, 158- of the Appendix to this volume. 

4 Dr. Kennicott, Dissertation i. on Hebrew Text, p. 345, 

I. Sect II.] 

On the Greek Language . 




I. Similarity of the Greek Language of the New Testament with that of 
the Alexandrian or Septuagint Greek Version. — II. The New Testa- 
ment why written in Greek . — III. Examination of its Style . — IV. Its 
Dialects — Hebraisms — Rabbinhms — Aramceisms — Lalinisms — Per- 
sis 7ns and Cilicisms . 

I. Similarity of the Greek Language of the New Testa- 

If a knowledge of Hebrew be necessary and desirable s in order to 
understand the Old Testament aright, an acquaintance with the Greek 
language is of equal importance for understanding the New Testa- 
ment correctly. It is in this language that the Septuagint version 
of the Old Testament was executed : and as the inspired writers of 
tlie New Testament thought and spoke in the Chaldee or Syriac 
tongues, whose turns of expression closely corresponded with those 
of the antient Hebrew, the language of the apostles and evangelists, 
when they wrote in Greek, necessarily resembled that of the trans- 
lators of the Septuagint. And as every Jew, who read Greek at all, 
would read the Greek Bible, the style of the Septuagint again oper- 
ated in forming the style of the Greek Testament. 1 * The Septua- 
gint version, therefore, being a new source of interpretation equally 
important to the Old and New Testament, a knowledge of the Greek 
language becomes indispensably necessary to the biblical student. 

II. A variety of solutions has been given to the question, why the 
New Testament was written in Greek. 

The true reason is simply this, — that it was the language best 
understood both by writers and readers, being spoken and written, 
read and understood, throughout the Roman empire, and particu- 
larly in the eastern provinces. In fact, Greek was at that time as 
well known in the higher and middle circles as the French is in our 
day. To the universality of the Greek language, Cicero a , Seneca 3 , 
and Juvenal 4 bear ample testimony: and the circumstances of the 
Jews having had both political, civil, and commercial relations with 
the Greeks, and being dispersed through various parts of the Roman 
empire, as well as their having cultivated the philosophy of the 

i Bishop Marsh’s Lectures, partiii. pp. SO, 31. The question relative to the supposed 

Hebrew originals of Saint Matthew’s Gospel, and of the Epistle to the Hebrews, is 
purposely omitted in this place, as it is considered in the subsequent part of this work, 

3 Orat. pro Archia Poeta, c. 10. Grmca leguntur in omnibus fare gentibus ; Latina 
suis finibus, cxiguis sane, continentur. Julius Caesar attests the prevalence of the Greek 
language in Gaul. De Bell. Gall. lib. i. c. 29. lib. vi. c. 14. (vol. i, pp, 23. 161. edit. 

s In consolat. ad Helviam, c. 6 . Quid sibl volunt in mediis barbaromm regionibus 
Grcccm vrbes ? Quid inter Indos Persasquc Macedonicus sermo ? Scythia et totus ille 
ferarum indomitarumque gentium tractus civitates A chaise, Ponticis impositas litoribus, 

4 Nunc totus Graias nostrasque habet orbis Athcnas. Sat. xv, v. 110. Even the fe- 
male sex, it appears from the same satirist, made use of Greek as the language of fami- 
liarity and passion. See Sat. vi. v . 185— 191. 

14 On the Original Languages of Scripture* [Part I, Ch. 

Greeks, of which we have evidence in the New Testament, all suf- 
ficiently account for their being acquainted with the Greek language : 
-to which we may add the fact, that the Septuagint Greek version of 
the Old Testament had been in use among the Jews upwards of two 
hundred and eighty years before the Christian aera : which most as- 
suredly would not have been the case if the language had not been 
familiar to them. And if the eminent Jewish writers, Philo and Jo- 
sephus, had motives for preferring to write in Greek (and the very 
fact of their' writing in Greek proves that that language was vernacular 
to their countrymen), there is no reason — at least there is no general 
presumption — why the first publishers of the Gospel might not use 
the Greek language. 1 But we need not rest on probabilities. For, 

1. It is manifest from various passages in the first book of Mac- 
cabees, that the Jews of all classes must at that time (n. c, 175 — HO) 
have understood the language of their conquerors and oppressors, 
the Macedonian Greeks under Antiochus, falsely named the Great, 
and his successors. 

2. Further, when the Macedonians obtained the dominion of 
western Asia, they filled that country with Greek cities. The Greeks 
also possessed themselves of many cities in Palestine, to which the 
Herods added many others, which were also inhabited by Greeks. 
Herod the Great, in particular, made continual efforts to' give a fo- 
reign physiognomy to Judaea ; which country, during the personal mi- 
nistry of Jesus Christ, was thus invaded on every side by a Greek popu- 
lation. The following particulars will confirm and illustrate this fact. 

Aristobulus and Alexander built or restored many cities, which 
were almost entirely occupied by Greeks, or by Syrians who spoke 
their language. Some of the cities, indeed, which were rebuilt by 
the Asmonaean kings, or by the command of Pompey, were on the 
frontiers of Palestine, but a great number of' them were in the in- 
terior of that country : and concerning these cities we have historical 
data which demonstrate that they were very nearly, if not altogether, 
Greek. Thus, at Dora, a city of Galilee, the inhabitants refused to 
the Jews the right of citizenship which had been granted to them by 
Claudius. ® Josephus expressly says that Gadara and Hippos are 
Greek cities , el<n TroAei*. 0 In the very centre of Palestine 

stood Bethshan, which place its Greek inhabitants called ScjjthopoUs;' 
Josephus 5 testifies that Gaza, in the southern part of Jud ma, was 
Greek : and Joppa, the importance of whose harbour induced the 
kings of Egypt and Syria successively to take it from the Jews % 

1 Josephus, de Bell. Jud. Proem, § 2. says, that he composed his history of* the Jewish 
war m the language of his country, and afterwards wrote it in Greek for the information 
of the Greeks and Romans. The reader will find a great number of additional tvstimo- 
nies to the prevalence of the Greek language in the east, in Antonii Josephi liinterim 

JuDIStOla Gath nil na Tntnr lnonlia An T ■XT....: rn..,.,.. 1 , . „ 

, . , . . - - — — — r~r— uuu mv loadinir of the Holv 

Scriptures, m the vulgar tongue, ought not to he promiscuously allowed. 

4 r U i‘ li . b - XiX - C ‘ C - 5 *■ 3 An ‘- lib. xvi. c. II. § 4. 

. n Judges,. 27. (Septuagint Version.) Polybius, lib, v. c. 70. « 4, 

5 Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. xvii. c. 11. §4. * 

Sic. lib. xix. c. 59. 93. 1 Mucc. x. 15. xii. 33,04. xiii. 11. xiv 34 2 Mnrc 
xun 3* Josephus, Am. Jud. lib, xiii. c, 9. § 2 . and hb. xiv. c. 10* § 22 / 

L Sect II.] 


On the Greek Language. 

most certainly could not remain a stranger to the same influence. 
Under the reign of Herod the Great, Palestine became still more 
decidedly Greek. That prince and his sons erected several cities in 
honour of the Caesars. The most remarkable of all these, Caesarea, 
(which was the second city in his kingdom,) was chiefly peopled by 
Greeks 1 ; who after Herod’s death, under the protection of Nero, 
expelled the Jews who dwelt there with them. 2 The Jews revenged 
the affront, which they had received at Caesarea, on Gadara, Hippos, 
Scylhopolis, Askalon, and Gaza, — a further proof that the Greeks 
inhabited those cities jointly with the Jews. 3 After the death of 
Pompey, the Greeks being liberated from all the restraints which 
had been imposed on them, made great progress in Palestine under 
the protection of Plerod ; who by no means concealed his partiality 
for them 4 , and lavished immense sums of money for the express 
purpose of naturalising their language and manners among the Jews. 
With this view he built a theatre and amphitheatre at Caesarea 5 ; at 
Jericho an amphitheatre, and a stadium 6 ; he erected similar edifices 
at the very gates of the holy city, Jerusalem, and he even proceeded 
to build a theatre within its walls. 7 

3. The Roman government was rather favourable than adverse to 
the extension of the Greek language in Palestine, in consequence of 
Greek being the official language of the procurators of that country, 
when administering justice, and speaking to the people. 

Under the earlier emperors, the Romans were accustomed fre- 
quently to make use of Greek, even at Rome, when the affairs of the 
provinces were under consideration. 8 If Greek were thus used at 
Rome, we may reasonably conclude that it would be still more fre- 
quently spoken in Greece and in Asia. In Palestine, in particular, 
we do not perceive any vestige of the official use of the Latin lan- 
guage by the procurators. We do not find a single instance, either 
in the books of the New Testament or in Josephus, in which the Ro- 
man governors made use of interpreters: and while use and the affairs 
of life accustomed the common people to that language, the higher 
classes of society would on many accounts be obliged to make use of it. 

4. So far were the religious authorities of the Jews from opposing 
the introduction of Greek, that they appear rather to have favoured 
the use of that language. 

They employed it, habitually, in profane works, and admitted it 
into official acts. An article of the Mischua prohibits the Jews from 
writing books in any other language, except the Greek . (J Such a 

1 Josephus, do Boll, Jud. lib. iii. c. 9. compared with lib. ii. c. IS. §7. 

Q Bell. Jud. lib. ii. c. 14. § 4. 3 Ibid. lib. ii. c, 18, 

4 Josephus, Ant, Jud. lib. xix. c. 7* § 5. 

5 Idem. lib. xv. c. 9. compared with lib. xvi. c*. 5. 

6 Boll. Jud. lib, i. c. 33. § G. 8. Ant. Jud. lib. xvii, c. 6. 

7 Bell. Jud, lib. i. c. 9. s. 3. Ant. Jud. lib. xv. c. 8. Bearpov €v 'lepoffohvfiois 

<aKohfj. 7 }(rc-v. Compare Eiehhorn de Judtcorum Rc Scenica in Comment, Soc. Reg. 
Seient. Gotting. Yol. II. Class. Antiq. pp, 10 — 13. 

8 This will account for the Jewish king, Herod Agrippa, and his brother being per- 
mitted by the emperor Claudius to be present in the senate, and to address that assembly- 
in Greek. Dion. Hist, lib. Jx, c, 8, 

0 Mischnaj Tract* Megill. c« 1. § 8t 


On the Original Languages of Scripture. [Part J. Ch. 

prohibition would not have been given if they had not been accus- 
tomed to write in a foreign language. The act or instrument of di- 
vorce might, indifferently, be written and signed in Greek or Hebrew: 
in either language, and with either subscription, it was valid. 1 During 
the siege of Jerusalem, for the first time, some opposition was made 
to the^use of the Greek language, when brides were forbidden to 
wear a nuptial crown, at the same time that fathers were commanded 
to prevent their children thenceforward from learning Greek. 52 This 
circumstance will enable us readily to understand why Josephus, 
when sent by Titus to address his besieged countrymen, spoke to 
them that is, in the Hebrew dialect, and tij nctTgtco yAoorij, in 

his native tongue 3 : it was not that he might be better heard, but 
that he might make himself known to them as their fellow-country- 
man and brother. 

5. The Greek language was spread through various classes of the 
Jewish nation by usage and the intercourse of life. The people, with 
but few exceptions, generally understood it, although they continued 
to be always more attached to their native tongue. There were at 
Jerusalem religious communities wholly composed of Jews who spoke 
Greek; and of these Jews, as well as of Greek proselytes, the Chris- 
tian church at Jerusalem appears in the first instance to have been 
formed. An examination of the Acts of the Apostles will prove these 
assertions. Thus, in Acts xxi. 40. and xxii. 2. when Paul, after a 
tumult, addressed the populace in Hebrew, they kept the more silence. 
They, therefore, evidently expected that he would have spoken to 
them in another language, which they would have comprehended 4 , 
though they heard him much better in Hebrew, which they pre- 
ferred. In Acts vi. 9, and ix. 29. we read that there were at Jerusalem 
whole synagogues of Hellenist Jews, under the name of Cy remans, 
Alexandrians, &c. And in Acts vi. 1. we find that these very Hel- 
lenists formed a considerable portion of the church in that city . & 
From the account given in John xii. 20. of certain Greeks, (whether 
they were Hellenistic Jews or Greek proselytes, it is not material to 
detej mine,) who thiougli the apostle Philip requested an interview 
with Jesus, it may fairly be inferred that both Philip and Andrew 
understood Greek. 6 

6. Further, there are extant Greek monuments, containing opi- 

1 If the book of divorce be written in Hebrew, and the names of the witnesses in Greek 
oi vice versa s or the name of one witness be in Hebrew and the other in Greek - i 1 
scribe and witness wrote it, it is lawful. — Ibid. Tract. Gitin. c 9 6 8 * 

,J Ibid. Tract. Sotah. c. 9. § 14 . * “ s ' 

s Bell. Jud. lib. v. c. 9 . §2. lib. vi. c. 2. § 1. 

Innrf I l \ hke manue . r ’ 14 is , wcl J. fcnowu > tllere are many hundred thousand natives of Ire- 
I h0 I “:‘, UndtrS,a " wl,at . is said t0 tJ “™ in English, which language they wH 

■— — i—-* ■">».^S, 1 iS"— I“*- B-mm. K., iw. 

I, Sect, II. J On the Greek Language . 1 7 ■ 

taphs and inscriptions which were erected in Palestine and the neigh- 
bouring countries \ as well as antient coins which were struck in the 
cities of Palestine, and also in the various cities of Asia Minor. a 
What purpose could it answer, to erect the one or to execute the 
other, in the Greek language, if that language had not been familiar 
— indeed vernacular to the inhabitants of Palestine and the neigh- 
bouring countries ? There is, then, every reasonable evidence, 
amounting to demonstration, that Greek did prevail universally 
throughout the Roman empire; and that the common people of 
Judaea were acquainted with it, and understood it. 

Convincing as we apprehend the preceding facts and evidence will 
be found to the unprejudiced inquirer, two or three objections have 
been raised against them, which it may not be irrelevant here briefly 
to notice. 

1 . It is objected that, during the siege of Jerusalem, when Titus 
granted a truce to the factious Jews just before he commenced his 
last assault, he advanced towards them accompanied by an inter- 
preter 1 * 3 : but the Jewish historian, Josephus, evidently means that the 
Roman general, confident of victory, from a sense of dignity, spoke 
first, and in liis own maternal language, which we know was Latin. 
The interpreter’, therefore, did not attend him in order to translate 
Greek words into Hebrew, but for the purpose of rendering into 
Hebrew or Greek the discourse which Titus pronounced in Latin. 

2. It has also been urged as a strong objection to the Greek ori- 
ginal of the gospels, that Jesus Christ spoke in Hebrew ; because 
Hebrew words occur in Mark v. 41. ( Talitha cumi ); vii. 34. {Eph- 
phatha ); Matt, xxvii. 46. (Eli, Eli ! Lama sabackthani), and Mark 
xv. 34. But to this affirmation we may reply, that on this occasion 
the evangelists have noticed and transcribed these expressions in the 
original, because Jesus did not ordinarily and habitually speak 
Hebrew. But admitting it to be more probable, that the Redeemer 
did ordinarily speak Hebrew to the Jews, who were most partial to 
their native tongue, which they heard him speak with delight, we 
may ask — in what language but Greek did he address the multi- 
tudes, when they were composed of a mixture of persons of different 
countries and nations — proselytes to the Jewish religion, as well as 
heathen Gentiles ? For instance, the Gadarenes (Matt. viii. 28 — *34. 
Mark v. 1. Luke viii. 26.) ; the inhabitants of the borders of Tyre 
and Sidon (Mark vii. 24.) ; the inhabitants of the Decapolis ; the 
Syrophocnician woman, who is expressly termed a Greeks )j yvvri 
r EAA >jvjc, in Mark vii. 26. ; and the Greeks , ‘Eaa^vs^, who were de- 
sirous of seeing Jesus at the passover. (John xii. 20.) 4 

3. Lastly, it has been objected, that, as the Christian churches 
were in many countries composed chiefly of the common people, 
they did not and could not understand Greek. But not to insist on 

1 Antonii Jos. Binterim, Propcmpticum ad Molfcenbuhrii Froblema Criticum, — 

Sacra Seriptura Novi Testament! in quo idiomate originalitcr ab apostolis edita fuit ? 
pp. 27 — 40. (Moguntia;, 1822. 8vo.) 

3 Ibid. pp. 40 — 44. 

3 Josephus, de Bell. Jud. lib. vi. c.6. * Ccll£riej\ Essai, p.249. Hug, vol. ii. p.54, 



On the Original Languages of Scripture. [Part L Ch. 

the evidence already adduced for the universality of the Greek lan- 
guage, we may reply, that “ in every church there were numbers of 
persons endowed with the gifts of tongues, and of the interpretation of 
tongues ; who could readily turn the apostles’ Greek epistles into 
the language of the church to which they were sent. In particular, 
the president, or the spiritual man, who read the apostle’s Greek 
letter to the Hebrews in their public assemblies, could, without 
any hesitation, read it in the Hebrew language, for the edification 
of those who did not understand Greek. And with respect to the 
Jews in the provinces, Greek being the native language of most of 
them, this epistle was much better calculated for their use, written 
in the Greek language, than if it had been written in the Hebrew, 
which few of them understood.” Further, 66 it w T as proper that all 
the apostolical epistles should be written in the Greek language ; 
because the different doctrines of the Gospel being delivered and 
explained in them, the explanation of these doctrines could with 
more advantage, be compared so as to be better understood, being 
expressed in one language, than if, in the different epistles, they had 
been expressed in the language of the churches and persons to 
whom they were sent. Now, what should that one language be, in 
which it was proper to write the Christian Revelation, but the Greek, 
which was then generally understood, and in which there were many 
books extant, that treated of all kinds of literature, and on that 
account were likely to be preserved, and by the reading of which 
Christians, in after ages, would be enabled to understand the Greek 
of the New Testament? This advantage none of the provincial 
dialects used in the apostles’ days could pretend to. Being limited 
to particular countries, they were soon to be disused : and few (if an} 7 ) 
books being written in them which merited to be preserved, the 
meaning of such of the apostles’ letters as were composed in the 
provincial languages could not easily have been ascertained .” 1 

III. Examination of the Style of the New Testament. 

The style of the New Testament has a considerable affinity with 
that of the Septuagint version, which was executed at Alexandria 2 , 
although it approaches somewhat nearer to the idiom of the Greek 
language ; but the peculiarities of the Hebrew phraseology are dis- 
cernible throughout, the language of the New Testament being formed 
by a mixture of oriental idioms and expressions with those which are 
properly Greek. Hence it has by some pliilologers been termed 
Hebraic-Greek z and (from the Jews having acquired the Greek lan- 
guage, rather by practice than by grammar, among the Greeks, in 
whose countries they resided in large communities) Hellenistic-Greek m 
The propriety of this appellation was severely contested towards the 
close of the seventeenth and in the early part of the eighteenth cen^ 

1 Dr. Macknight on the Epistles, Pref. to Hebrews, sect.ii. § 3. vol.iv. p.336. 4to. edit. 

. 2 Michaelis has devoted an entire section to show that the language of the New Testa- 
ment lias a tincture of the Alexandrian idiom. Vol. i. pp. 143. et seq . Professor Winer 
has given an interesting historical sketch of the Greek Language of the New Testament, 
in his Greek Grammar of the New Testament, translated by Professor Stuart and Mr. 
Robinson, pp, 12—35. Andover [North America], 1825, Svo. 

■ I. Sect, II.] On the Greek Language , 1 9 

tury 1 : and numerous publications were written on both sides of the 
question, with considerable asperity, which, together with the con- 

1 The “controversy on this topic began, very soon after the revival of literature in 
Europe. In the sixteenth century, Erasmus and Laurentius Valla ventured to assert 
publicly, that the Greek of the New Testament is Hellenistic. Many learned men of 
that day were inclined to adopt this opinion. But Robert Stephens, in the preface to his 
celebrated edition of the New Testament (1576), took it into his head strenuously to 
contend for the Attic purity of its dialect. As his Testament was so widely circulated, 
the preface served to excite general attention to the subject in question, and to prepare the 
minds of critics for the mighty contest which followed. Sebastian Pforscher led the -way, 
in his Dialribe de Ling. Grcec . N. Test, purilale, published in 1629, at Amsterdam; in 
which he defends, with great warmth, the purity of the New .Testament Greek. His an- 
tagonist was J. Jung, who published in 1640 his Sentential doctissvirorum, de Hellenistis et 
Hellenistica Dialecto. To this a leply was made, by J. Grosse of Jena, styled Trias pro- 
positionum theol. stilum Nov. Test . a barbaris criminationibus vindicantium >■ in which the 
whole mass of Hellenists were consigned over to the most detestable heresy. In the same 
year, Wulfer wrote an answer to this in his Innocentia Hellenistarum vindicata; to which 
Grosse replied, in his Observatianes pro triade Obsermtt. apologetic# . Musaeus defended 
Wulfer (though not in all his positions) in his Disquisitio de stilo Nov. Testament i, a. d. 
1641 j to which Grosse replied by a Tertia defensio Triados, 1641. In 1642, Musaeus 
felt himself compelled to publish his Vindicice JDisquisitionis ; which however only excited 
Grosse to a Q.uarta defensio Triados. 

“ About the same time, the controversy was briskly carried on in Holland. D. Hein- 
sius, in his Aristarchus Sacer , and his Exercitt. sac. in Nov. Test amentum, had espoused 
the cause of Hellenism, and commented upon Pforscher’s Diatribe. In a plainer manner 
still did he do this, in his Exercitatio de Lingua Hellenistica , published in 1643, In the 
very same year, the celebrated Salmasius appeared as his antagonist, in three separate 
publications, the spirit and tone of which may be readily discerned from their titles. The 
first was inscribed Commentarius controversiam de lingua Hellenistica decidens ; the second, 
Funus lingua: Hellenistic# / the third, Ossilegium linguae Hellenistic ce. In 1648, Ga- 
taker, in England, warmly espoused the cause of the Hellenists, in his Dissert, de stilo 
Nov. Testamenti. On the same side, about this time, appeared Werenfels, of Switzerland, 
in his essay De stylo Script . Nov. Testamenti ; and J. Olearius, of Germany, in his book 
De stilo Nov. Testamenti; also Bdckler, in his Tract, Deling. Nov. Test, originali . In 
Holland, Vorstius published, in defence of the same side, his book De Hebraisniis Nov. 
Testamenti , 1658 ; and in 1665, his Comment, de Hebraism is, N. Test. The last was attack- 
ed by H. Vitringa, in his Specimen ahnotatt. ad Philol. Sac . Vorstii. The best of these dis- 
sertations were collected and published by Rhenferd in his Syntagma Dm* Philol » Theol. 
de Stilo Nov . Test. 1703 ; and also by Van Honert, about the same time, at Amsterdam. 

“ J. H. Michaelis, in his essay De texlu Nov . Test. Halae, 1707, and H. Blackwall in 
his Sacred Classics illustrated and defended , endeavoured to moderate the parties, and to 
show, that while it might safely be admitted that there are Hebraisms in the New Testa- 
ment, it may at the same time be mintained, that the Greek of the sacred writers is 
entitled to the character of classic purity. But all efforts at peace were defeated by 
Gcorgi of Wittemberg, who, in 1732, published his Vindici ce Nov. Test. This was an- 
swered by Knapp and Dressing of Leipsic. In 1733, Georgi published his Hierocri- 
ticus Sacer, in three books; -and at the end of the year, a second part, in as many more 
books ; which were also answered by his Leipsic opponents. From this time, the cause 
of the Hellenists began to predominate throughout Europe. And though many essays on 
this subject have since appeared, and it has been canvassed in a far more able manner than' 
before, yet few of these essays have been controversial ; almost all writers leaning to the 
side of Hellenism.” Dissertations on the Importance and best Method of studying the 
Original Languages of the Bible, by Jahn and others, with Notes by Prof. Stuart, ( An- 
dover, N. America, 1821,) pp. 77, 78. The reader, who is desirous of investigating the 
controversy on the purity of the language of the New Testament, is referred to the 
Acroases Academic® super HermeneuLica Novi Testamenti of Prof. Morus (vol. i. 
pp. 202 — 233.) ; in which he has enumerated the principal writers on each side of the 
question. A similar list has been given by Beck ( Monogrammata Hermeneutices Novi 
Testamenti, parti, pp. 28 — 32.), by Rumpaeus (Isagoge ad Lectionem N. T* pp. 33- el 
seq.) and by Rambach. (Instit. Herm. Sacree, pp. 23. 399.) Dr. Campbell has treated 
the subject very ably in the first of his Preliminary Dissertations, prefixed to his version 
of the four Gospels; and Wetstein (Libelli ad Crisin atque Interpretation cm N. T. 
pp. 48 — 60.) has given some interesting extracts from Origen, Chrysostom, and other 
fathers, who were of opinion that the language of the New Testament was not pure 
Greek, Other writers might be mentioned, who have treated bibliographically on this 

C % 


On the Original Languages of Scripture. [Part I. Cfa. 

troversy, are now almost forgotten. The dispute, however interest- 
ing to the philological antiquarian, is, after all, a mere 66 strife of 
words 1 and as the appellation of Hellenistic or Hebraic Greek 
is sufficiently correct for the purpose of characterising the language 
of the New Testament, it is now generally adopted. 

Of this Hebraic style, the Gospels of St. Matthew and St Mark 
exhibit strong vestiges : the former presents harsher Hebraisms than 
the latter: and the Gospel of St. Mark abounds with still more 
striking Hebraisms. 6£ The epistles of St. James and Jude are some- 
what better, but even these are full of Hebraisms, and betray in 
other respects a certain Hebrew tone. St. Luke has, in several pas- 
sages, written pure and classic Greek, of which the four first verses 
of his Gospel may be given as an instance : in the sequel, where he 
describes the actions of Christ, he has very harsh Hebraisms, yet 
the style is more agreeable than that of St. Matthew or St. Mark. 
In the Acts of the Apostles he is not free from Hebraisms, which he 
seems to have never studiously avoided; but his periods are more 
classically turned, and sometimes possess beauty devoid of art. St. 
John has numerous, though not uncouth, Hebraisms both in his 
Gospel and epistles; but he has written in a smooth and flowing lan- 
guage, and surpasses all the Jewish writers in the excellence of nar- 
rative. St. Paul again is entirely different from them all; his style 
is indeed neglected and full of Hebraisms, but he has avoided the 
concise and verse-like construction of the Hebrew language, and has, 
upon the whole, a considerable share of the roundness of Grecian 
composition. It is evident that he was as perfectly acquainted with 
the Greek manner of expression as with the Hebrew ; and he has 
introduced them alternately, as either the one or the other suggested 
itself the first, or was the best approved. 5,9 

This diversity of style and idiom in the sacred writers of the 
New Testament affords an intrinsic and irresistible evidence for 
the. authenticity of the books which pass under their names. If 
their style had. been uniformly the same, there would be good rea- 
son for suspecting that they had all combined together when they 
wrote; or, else, that having previously concerted what they should 
teach, one of them had committed to writing their system of doc- 
trine. In ordinary cases, when there is a difference of style in a 
work be the production of one author, we have reason 
to believe that it was written by several persons. In like manner, 
and for the very same reason, when books, which pass under the 
names of several authors, are written in different styles, we are au- 
thorised to conclude that they were not composed by one person. 

topic : but the preceding foreign critics only are specified, as their works mav be easily 
procured from the Continent. ' 3 

** Michaelis ascribes the disputes above noticed either to <£ a want of sufficient know^ 
edge of the Greek, the prejudices of pedantry and school orthodoxy, or the injudicious 
custom of choosing the Greek Testament as the Jirst book to be read by learners of that 
language; by which means they are so accustomed to its singular style, that in a more 
advanced age they are incapable of perceiving its deviation from the language of the clas- 
sics. (Bp. Marsh’s Michaelis, vol. i, p. 211.) 

- 2 Michaelis, vol. i* p, 112. ; 

I. Sect. II.] 


On the Greek Language. 

Further, If the New Testament had been written with classic 
purity ; if it had presented to us the language of Isocrates, Demos- 
thenes, Xenophon, or Plutarch, there would have been just grounds 
for suspicion of forgery; and it might with propriety have been 
objected, that it was impossible for Hebrews, who professed to be 
men of no learning, to have written in so pure and excellent a style, 
and, consequently, that the books which were ascribed to them must 
have been the invention of some impostor. The diversity of style, 
therefore, which is observable in them, so far from being any ob- 
jection to the authenticity of the New Testament, is in reality a 
strong argument for the truth and sincerity of the sacred writers, 
and of the authenticity of their writings. cc Very many of the Greek 
words, found in the New Testament, are not such as were adopted 
by men of education, and the higher and more polished ranks of 
life, but such as were in use with the common people. N.ow this 
shows that the writers became acquainted with the language, in con- 
sequence of an actual intercourse with those who spoke it, rather 
than from any study of books : and that intercourse must have 
been very much confined to the middling or even lower classes ; 
since the words and phrases, most frequently used by them, passed 
current only among the vulgar. There are undoubtedly many 
plain intimations 1 given throughout these books, that their writers 
were of this lower class, and that their associates were frequently 
of the same description ; but the character of the style is the strongest 
confirmation possible that their conditions were not higher than 
what they have ascribed to themselves .” 2 * * * In fact, the vulgarisms, 
foreign idioms, and other disadvantages and defects, which some 
critics imagine that they have discovered in the Hebraic Greek of the 
New Testament, “ are assigned by the inspired writers as the reasons 
of God’s preference of it, whose thoughts are not our thoughts, nor 
his ways our ways. Paul argues, that the success of the preachers of 
the Gospel, in spite of the absence of those accomplishments in lan- 
guage, then so highly valued, was an evidence of the divine power 
and energy with which their ministry was accompanied. He did 
not address them, he tells us (1 Cor. i. 17.) with the wisdom of words, 
— with artificial periods and a studied elocution, — lest the cross of 
Christ should he made of none effect ; — lest to human eloquence that 
success should be ascribed, which ought to be attributed to the 
divinity of the doctrine and the agency of the Spirit, in the miracles 
wrought in support of it. There is hardly any sentiment which he 
is at greater pains to enforce. He used none of the enticing or per - 
suasive words of man's wisdom. Wherefore ? — 6 That their faith 

1 It is obvious to cito such passages, as Mark i. 16. ii. 14. Johnxxi. 3. 7. .where tha 

occupations of the Apostles arc plainly and professedly mentioned. It may be more 
satisfactory to refer to Acts iii. 6, xviii. 3. xx. 34. 2 Cor. viii. and ix. xi. 6. 8, 9. 27, xii. 

14, Sec. l J hil. ii. 25. iv. 10, &c. 1 Tliess. ii, 6. 9. 2 Thess. iii. 8. 10. Philcm. 11. 18. In 

these, the attainments, occupations, and associates of the preachers of the Gospel are 
indirectly mentioned and alluded to ; and afford a species of undesigned proof, which 
seems to repel the imputation of fraud, especially if the circumstance of style be taken 
into the account. 

Dr. Mai thy ’s <c Ulustiations of the Truth of the Christian Religion,” pp. 10 — 12, 

c 3 


On the Original languages of Scripture . [Part I. Ch„ 

might not stand in the wisdom of man^ hut in the power of God? 
(1 Cor. ii. 4, 5.) Should I ask what was the reason why our Lord 
Jesus Christ chose for the instruments of that most amazing revolu- 
tion in the religious systems of mankind, men perfectly illiterate and 
taken out of the lowest class of the people ? Your answer to this 
w T ill serve equally for an answer to that other question, — Why did 
the Holy Spirit choose to deliver such important truths in the bar- 
barous idiom of a few obscure Galileans, and not in the politer and 
more harmonious strains of Grecian eloquence ? — I repeat it, the an- 
swer to both questions is the same — That it might appear, beyond con- 
tradiction, that the excellency of the power was or God, and not of man*” 1 

A large proportion, however, of the phrases and constructions of 
the New Testament is pure Greek ; that is to say, of the same de- 
gree of purity as the Greek which was spoken in Macedonia, and 
that in which Polybius wrote his Roman History. Hence the lan- 
guage of the New Testament will derive considerable illustration 
from consulting the works of classic writers, and especially from 
diligently collating the Septuagint version of the Old Testament : 
the collections also of Raphelius, Palairet, Bos, Abresch, Ernesti, 
and other writers whose works are noticed in the Appendix to this 
volume, will afford the biblical student very essential assistance in 
explaining the pure Greek expressions of the New Testament ac- 
cording to the usage of classic authors. It should further be noticed, 
that there occur in the New Testament words that express both 
doctrines and practices which were utterly unknown to the Greeks ; 
and also words bearing widely different interpretation from those 
which are ordinarily found in Greek writers. 

IV. The New ^Testament contains examples of the various dia- 
lects occurring in the Greek language, and especially of the Attic ; 
which being most generally in use on account of its elegance, per- 
vades every book of the New Testament. To these, some have 
added the poetic dialect, chiefly, it should seem, because there are a 
„ few passages cited by St. Paul from the antient Greek poets, in Acts 
xvii. 28. lCor. xv. 33. and Tit. i. 12. 2 But the sacred writers of 
the New Testament being Jews, were consequently acquainted with 
the Hebrew idioms, and also with the common as well as with the ap- 
propriated, or acquired senses of the words of that language. Hence 
when they used a Greek word, as correspondent to a Hebrew one 
ot like signification, they employed it as the Hebrew word was used, 
either in a common or appropriated sense, as occasion required. 

I he whole arrangement of their periods “ is regulated according to 
the Hebrew verses (not those in Hebrew poetry, but such as are 
■ound in the historical books); which are constructed in a manner 
directly opposite to the roundness of Grecian language, and for want 

1 Dr. Campbell’s Preliminary Dissertations, Diss. i. fvol. i Sd edit 1 n cn 

MXtrl'W WU ? - USUal ab!lil * in '“ ‘‘^trine of G^ce!’ ' 

trnctioT™U pp~|i 6 iT 23 S ’ VOl - Vm - PP * 279 - 302 ') S - “1*> Miclmelis’s In- 
§ 6. (oJtom.Tp.fiSsT Line * Hcrmencl,tic£c > P- lc - Puffer Hmn. Sacra, c. vii. 

I. Sect. II.] Hebraisms of the New Testament . 2 3 

of variety have an endless repetition of the same particles.” 1 These 
peculiar idioms are termed Hebraisms , and their nature and classes 
have been treated at considerable length by various writers. Georgi, 
Pfochenius, Blackwall, and others, have altogether denied the ex- 
istence of these Hebraisms ; while their antagonists have, perhaps 
unnecessarily, multiplied them. Wyssius, in his Dialectologia 
Sacra, has divided the Hebraisms of the New Testament into thir- 
teen classes ; Vorstius 2 into thirty-one classes ; and Viser into eight 
classes 3 ; and Masclef has given an ample collection of the Hebra- 
isms occurring in the sacred writings in the first volume of his 
excellent Hebrew Grammar. 4 The New Testament, however, 
contains fewer Hebrew grammatical constructions than the Sep- 
tuagint, except in the book of Revelation ; where we often find a 
nominative, when another case should have been substituted, - in 
imitation of the Hebrew, which is without cases. 5 As the limits 
necessarily assigned to this section do not permit us to abridge the 
valuable treatises just noticed, we shall here adduce some instances 
of the Hebraisms found principally in the New Testament, and shall 
offer a few canons by which to determine them with precision. 

1. Thus, to be called , io arise , and to be founds are the same as to be , with 
the Hebrews, and this latter is in the Old Testament frequently expressed 
by the former. Compare Isa. lx. 14. 18. lxi. 3. lxii. 12. Zech. viii. 3* 

Accordingly, in the New Testament, these terms are often employed one for the other, 
as in Matt. v. 9. They shall he called the children of God : and ver. 3 9. He shall be called 
the least in l he kingdom of Heaven ! — 1 John iii. 1 . That ice should be called the sons of God. 
To be called here and in other places is really to be, and it is so expressed according to 
the Hebrew way of speaking. There is the like signification of the word arise, as in 
2 Sam. xi. 20. if the king's wrath arise. — Esth. iv. 14. Enlargement and deliverance shall 
arise to the Jews. Prov. xxiv. 22. their calamity shall arise suddenly. — In all which places 
the word arise signifies no other than actual being or existing , according to the Hebrew idiom. 
And hence it is used in a similar manner in the New Testament, as in Luke* xxiv. 38. 
Why do thoughts arise in your hearts ? i. c. Why are they there ? — Matt. xxiv. 24. There 
shall arise false Christs, i. c. there shall actually be at that time such persons according to 
my piediction. So, to be found is among the Hebrews of the same import with the above- 
mentioned expressions, and accordingly in the Old Testament one is put for the other, as in 
1 Sam, xxv. 28. Evil hath not been found in thee. — 2 Ghron. xix. 3. Good things are found 
in thee . — Isa. li. 0. Joy and gladness shall be found therein. — Han. v. 12. An excellent 
spirit was found in Daniel. In these and other texts the Hebrew word renderedybw/id is 
equivalent to was. In imitation of this Hebraism, to be found is used for sum or exist o, 
to be, in the New Testament, as in Luke xvii. 18. There are not found that returned to 
give glory to God , save this stranger'. — Acts v. 39. Lest haply ye be found to fight against 
God . — 1 Cor. iv. 2. Thai a man be found faitlful. — Phil. ii. 8. Being found in fashion 
as a man. — Hcb. xi. 5. Enoch was not found which is the same with Enoch was not, as 
is evident from comparing this place with Gen. v, 24. to which it refers. The expression 
of St. Peter, 1 Ep. ii. 22. Neither was guile found in his mouth, is taken from Isa. liii. 9. 
Neither was there any deceit (or guile) in his mouth. Whence it appears, that in this, as 
well as the other texts above cited, to be found is equivalent to was . 

1 Lcusdun de Dialectis, p. 20. Michaclis, vol. i. p. 123. 

- In his Philologia Sacra : this work was originally published in 4to. but the best edi- 
tion is that of M. Fischer, in 8vo. Leipsic, 1778. Vorstius’s treatise was abridged by 
Lcusden in his Philologus Graicus; and Leusdeu’s Abridgment was republished by 
Fischer, with valuable notes and other additions, in 8vo. Leipsic, 1783. 

3 In his Hermeneuticn Sacra Novi Testament!, parsii. vol, ii. pp. 1 — 62. 

4 See particularly pp. 273 — 290. 304 — 307. and 333 — 352. See also Schaefer’s In- 
stitutioncs Scripturisticie, parsii, pp. 194 — 205, 

6 Michaclis, vol. i. pp. 125. Glassius has given several instances in his Philologia 
Sacra, canons xxviii. and xxix. vol. i. pp. 67 — 72. edit. Hathe. Professor Winer divides 
the Hebraisms of the New Testament into two classes, perfect and imperfect. Greek 
Grammar of the New Test. pp. 32 — 35. where he has given many important examples. 

c 4 

24? On the Original Languages of Scripture. [Part I. Ch. 

2. Verbs expressive of a person’s doing an action, are often used to sig- 
nify his supposing the thing, or discovering and acknowledging the fact, or 
his declaring and foretelling the event, especially in the prophetic writings. 

Thus, He thatjindeth his life shall lose it (Matt. x.39.), means, He that expects to save his 
life by apostacy , shall lose it. — So, Let him become a fool (1 Cor. iii. 18.), is equivalent to, 
Let him become sensible of Ids folly . — Make the heart of this people fat ( Jsa. vi. 9, 10.), i. o. 
Prophesy that they shall be so. — What God hath cleansed (Acts x. 15.), i. e. What God hath 
declared clean. — Put of that day and hour no man Icnoiveth (that is, maketh known), not 
even the angels who are in heaven , neither the Son , but the Father (Matt. xxiv. 36.), that is, 
neither man, nor an angel, nor the Son, has permission to make known this secret. 

3. Negative verbs are often put for a strong positive affirmation. 

Thus, No good thing will he withhold (Psal. lxxxiv. 11.), means, He will give them all good 

things , — Being not weak in the faith (Rom. iv. 19.), i. e. Being strong in the faith. — I 
will not leave you comfortless (John xiv. IS.), means, I will both protect and give you Ilia 
most solid comfort. 

4. The privileges of the first-born among the Jews being very great, 
that which is chief or most eminent in any kind, is called the first-born, 
Gen. xlix. 3. 

So, in Job xviii. 13., the first-born of death is the most fatal and cruel death. — In 
Isa. xiv. 30. the first-born of the poor denotes those who are most poor and miserable. (See 
also Psai. lxxxix. 27. Jer. xxxi. 9. Rom. vixi. 29. Col. i. 15. 18. Heb. xii. 23.) 

5. The word son has various peculiar significations. This word was a 
favourite one among the Hebrews, who employed it to designate a great 
variety of relations. The son of any thing, according to the oriental idiom, 
may be either what is closely connected with it, dependant on it, like it, 
the consequence of it, worthy of it, &c. 

Thus, the sons or children of Belial, so often spoken of in the Old Testament, are wicked 
men, such as are good for nothing, or such as will not be governed. — Children of light are 
such as are divinely enlightened. (Lukexvi. 8. John xii. 36. Ephes. v. 8. 1 Thess." v. 5.) 
— Children of disobedience are disobedient persons. (Ephes. ii. 2.) Children of Hell 
(Matt, xxiii. 15.); — of wrath (Ephes. ii. 3.); and Son of perdition (John xvii. 12. 
2 Thess. ii. 3.) ; are respectively such as are worthy thereof, or obnoxious thereto. — A son 
of peace (Luke x. 6.) is one that is worthy of it. (See Matt. x. 13.) — The children of a 
place are the inhabitants of it. (Ezra ii. 1. Psal.cxlix. 2. Jer. ii. 16. — So the word 
daughter is likewise used (2 Kings xix. 21, Psal. xiv. 12. cxxxvii. S. Lam. ii. 13, 
Zech. ii. 10.) ; the city being as a mother , and the inhabitants of it taken collectively, as her 
daughter. The children of the promise , are such as embrace and believe the promise of the 
Gospel. (Gal. iv. 28.) - — Sons of men (Psal. iv. 2.) are no more than men. And Christ 
is as often called the son (f man, as he is man. The sons of God (Gen. vi. 2.) are those 
who professed to be pious, or the children of God. 1 (Matt. v. 45.) They arc such as 
imitate him, or are governed by him. (1 John iii. 10.) On the same account are men 
called the children of the devil . So likewise (John viii. 44.) father is understood in a like 
sense ; also those who are the inventors of any thing, or instruct others therein, arc called 
their fathers. (Gen. iv. 20.) 

6. Name is frequently used as synonymous with persons. 

Thus, to believe on the name of Christ (John i. 12.) means to believe on him, See 
similar examples in John iii. 18. xx. 31. Rev. iii. 4. In like manner soul is put for 
person, in Matt, xii, IS. In whom my soul is well pleased, that is, in whom I am well 
pleased. See other examples in Gen. xii. 13. xix. 20. Psal. cvi. 15. Job xvi. 4. Prov. 
xxv, 25. Rom. xiii. 1. Heb. x, 38. 

7. As the Jews had but few adjectives in their language, they had re- 
course to substantives, in order to supply their place. 

Hence we find kingdom and glory used to denote a glorious kingdom . (1 Thess. ii. 12.) 
Month and wisdom for wise discourse (Luke xxi. 15.) : the patience of hope for patient 
expectation (1 Thess. i. 3.) ; glory of his poiver for glorious power. (2 Thess, i, 9.) So cir- 

The various significations of the words “ Son,” and “ Sons of God,” according to 
the oriental idioms, are investigated and elucidated at considerable length by Professor 
|btuar*,m his * Letters onthe Eternal Generation of the Son of God,” pp. 94—107. An- 


tuart, in his * 

>ver (North America), 1822. 


I. Sect. II.] Hebraisms of the New Testament* 

cumclsion and uncircumcision mean circumcised and uncircumcised persons. Anathema 
(1 Cor. xvi. 22.) means, an excommunicated member. The spirits of the prophets (1 Cor. 
xiv. 32.), means, the spiritual gif ts of the prophets. When one substantive governs another, in 
the genitive, one of them is sometimes used as an adjective. In the body of his flesh, means, 
hi his fleshly body (Col. i. 22.); Bond of perfectness (Col.iii. 14.), means, a. perfect bond. 
In Eph. vi. 12. spiritual wickedness , means, wicked spirits. Newness of life (Rom. vii. 6.), 
is a new life . The tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. ii. 9. compared with iii. 22.), 
means, the tree of the knowledge of good, or of a pleasure which to taste is an evil . When two 
substantives are joined together, by the copulative and, the one frequently governs the other, 
as in Dan* iii. 7. All the people, the nations, and the languages, mean, people of all nations 
and languages. In Acts xxiii. 6. the hope and resurrection of the dead, means, the hope of 
the resurrection of the dead . In Col. ii. 8. Philosophy and vain deceit, denotes, a false and 
deceitful philosophy. Hath brought life and immortality to light (2 Tim. i. 10.), means, to 
bring immortal Ife to light. But the expression, I am the way, the truth , and the life, 
(John xiv. 6.) means, I am the trite and living way. It is of importance to observe, that, 
in the original, nouns in the genitive case sometimes express the object, and sometimes the 
agent. In Matt. ix. 35. the gospel of the kingdom, means, good news concerning the king- 
dom . Doctrines of devils, (1 Tim. iv. 1.) evidently mean, doctrines concerning demons. 
The faith of Christ often denotes the faith which the Lord Jesus Christ enjoins. The 
righteousness of God sometimes means, his personal perfection, and sometimes that righte- 
ousness which he requires of his people. In Col. ii. 11, the circumcision of Christ, means, 
the circumcision enjoined by Christ. The Hebrews used the word living, to express the ex- 
cellence of the thing to which it is applied. Thus, living water, or living fountain, signifies, 
running , or excellent water. Living stones, living way, living oracles, mean, excellent stones , 
an excellent way, and excellent oracles. 

8. The Jews, having no superlatives in their language, employed the 
words of God or of the Lord , in order to denote the greatness or excel- 
lency of a thing. 

Thus, in Gen. xiii.10., a beautiful garden is called the garden of the Lord. In 1 Sam. 
xxvi. 12. a very deep sleep is called the sleep of the Lord. In 2 Chron. xiv. 14. andxvii. 10., 
thu fenr of the Lord denotes a very great fear. In Psal. xxxvi. 7. Heb. (6. of English 
Bibles), the mountains of God are exceeding high mountains; and in Psal. lxxx. 10. (Heb.) 
the tallest cedars are termed cedars of God. The voices of God (Exod. ix. 28. Heb. in our 
version properly rendered mighty thundcrings) mean superlatively, loud thunder. Compare 
also the sublime description of the effects of thunder , or the voice of God, in Psal.xxix.3 — -'8. 
The production of rain by the electric spark’ is alluded to, in a very beautiful manner, in 
Jer. x. 13. When he (God) uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens. 1 
In Jonah iii. 2. Nineveh is termed an exceeding great city ; which in the original Hebrew is 
a city great to God. The like mode of expression occurs in the New Testament. Thus, 
in Acts vii. 20. Moses is said to be aareios rev ©ew, literally fair to God, or, as it is correctly 
rendered in our version, exceeding fair. And in 2 Cor. x. 4. the weapons of our warfare 
are termed Suj/ara rco ©ew, literally, mighty to God, that is, exceeding powerful, — not mighty 
through God, as in our authorised translation. 

9- According to the Hebrew idiom, a sword has a mouth 9 or the edge of 
the sword is called a mouth . (Luke xxi.24-.) 

They shall fall by the mouth (or, as our translators have correctly rendered it, the edge) 
of the sword, ( Heb. xi. 34. j — escaped the edge of the sword, is in the Greek erropa, the mouth 
of the sword. So, we read of a two-mouthed sword (ITeb. iv. 12.), for it is Surropos in the 
Greek. That this is the Hebrew phraseology may be seen by comparing Judg. iii. 1C. 
Psal. cxlix. 6. Prov, v, 4. 

10. The verb to hioxv , in the New Testament, frequently de- 

notes to approve . 

Thus, in Matt. vii. 23. I never knew you, means, , I never approved you. A similar 
construction occurs in l Cor. viii. 3. and in Rom, vii, 15. (Gr.) which in our version is 
rendered allow. Compare also Psal. i. C. 

11. Lastly, to hear denotes to understand , to attend to, and to regard 
what is said . 

In illustration of this remark, compare Deut. xviii. 15. with Acts iii. 23. and see also 
Matt. xvii. 5. and xi. 15. xiii. 9. and Luke viii. 8. 

It were no difficult task to adduce numerous similar examples of 

1 Dr. A, Clarke on Exod. ix, 28. 


On the Original Languages of Scripture . [Part I. Ch. 

the Hebraisms occurring in the Scriptures, and particularly in the 
New Testament; but the preceding may suffice to show the benefit 
that may be derived from duly considering the import of a word in 
the several passages of holy writ in which it occurs. 

In order to understand the full force and meaning of the Hebraisms 
of the New Testament, the following canons have been laid down by 
the celebrated critic John Augustus Ernesti, and his annotator Pro- 
fessor Morns. 

1 . Compare Hebrew words and forms of expressions with those which 
occur in good Greek formulce, particularly in doctrinal passages* 

As all languages have some modes of speech which are common to each other, it some- 
times happens that the same word or expression is both Hebrew, and good Greek, and 
affords a proper meaning, whether we take it in a Hebrew or a Greek sense. But, in such 
cases, it is preferable to adopt that meaning which a Jew would give, because it is most 
probable that the sacred writer had this in view rather than the Greek meaning, especially 
if the latter were not of very frequent occurrence. Thus, the expression, ye shall die in your 
sins (John viii. 24.), if explained according to the Greek idiom, is equivalent to ye shall 
per 'severe in a course of sinful practice to the end of your Hues ; but, according to the Hebrew 
idiom, it not only denotes a physical or temporal death, but also eternal death, and is equi- 
valent to ye shall be damned on account of your sins , in. rejecting the Messiah. The latter 
interpretation, therefore, is preferably to be adopted, as agreeing best with the Hebrew mode 
of thinking, and also with the context. 

This rule applies particularly to the doctrinal passages of the New Testament, which must 
in all cases be interpreted according to the genius of the Hebrew language. Thus, to fear 
God , in the language of a Jew, means to reverence or worship God generally. The know* 
ledge of God , which is so frequently mentioned in the New Testament, if taken according 
to the Hebrew idiom, implies not only the mental knowledge of God, but also the worship 
and reverence of Him which flows from it, and, consequently, it is both a theoretical and a 
practical knowledge of God. The reason of this rule is obvious. In the first place, our 
Saviour and his apostles, the first teachers of Christianity, were Jews, who had been edu- 
cated in the Jewish religion and language ; and who (with the exception of Paul) being 
unacquainted with the niceties of the Greek language at the time they were called to the 
apostolic office, could only express themselves in the style and manner peculiar to their 
country. Secondly, the religion taught in the New Testament agrees with that delivered 
in the Old Testament, of which it is a continuation ; so that the ritual worship enjoined by 
the law of Moses is succeeded by a spiritual or internal worship ; the legal dispensation is 
succeeded by the Gospel dispensation, in which what was imperfect and obscure is become 
perfect and clear. Now' things that are continued are substantially the same, or of a similar 
nature. Thus the expression to come unto God occurs both in the Old and in the New Tes- 
tament. In the former it simply meaus to go up to the temple ; in the latter it is continued, 
so that what was' imperfect becomes perfect, and it implies the mental or spiritual approach 
unto the Most High , l. e. the spiritual worshipping of God. In like manner, since the nu- 
merous particulars related in the Old Testament concerning the victims, priests, and temple 
of God are transferred in the New Testament, to the atoning death of Christ, to his offering 
of himself to death, and to the Christian church, the veil of figure being withdrawn, the force 
and beauty of these expressions cannot be perceived, nor their meaning fully ascertained un- 
less we interpret the doctrinal parts of the New Testament, by the aid of the Old Testament. 

2 - The Hebraisms of the Neiv Testament are to be compared mlh the 
good Greek occurring m the Septuagint or Alexandrian version. 

As the Hebraisms occurring in the Old Testament are uniformly rendered, in the 
Septuagint version, in good Greek, this translation may be considered as a commentary 
and exposition of those passages, and as conveying the sense of the Hebrew nation con 
cernmg their meaning. The Alexandrian translation, therefore, ought to be consulted in 
those passages of the New Testament in which the sacred writers have rendered the He 
bnusms literally Thus in 1 Cor. xv. 54. death is said to be w allowed vp in victor,/, which 
sentence is a quotaUon from Isaiah xxv. 8. As the Hebrew word nsj nctsoch, Trith tlic S 
pre6xed, acquires the force of an adverb, and means for ever, without end, or incessantly 
and as the Septuagint sometimes renders the word taiteTsacH by eis nms in victory but 
most commonly by «a r **,> ever, Michaelis is of opinion that this last meaning nroperiv 
* 0 . 1 t Cor - «■ | 4 -> should therefore be rendered death is mnUmved tmfor \iJ 
A.nd so it is translated by Bishop. Pearce. i J * 


I. Sect. II.] Rabbinisms^ 8fc. of the Netv Testament, 

3 . In passages that are good Greek, which are common both to the Old 
and New Testament , the corresponding words in the Hebrew Old Testament 
are to be compared . 

Several passages occur in the New Testament, that are good Greek, and which are also 
to be found in the Alexandrian version. In these cases it is not sufficient to consult the 
Greek language only : recourse should also be had to the Hebreiv, because such words of 
the Septuagint and New Testament have acquired a different meaning from what is given to 
them by Greek writers, and are sometimes to be taken in a more lax, sometimes in a 
more strict sense. Thus, in Gen.v. 24. and Heb. xi, 5. it is said that Enoch pleased God 
cut] pfz(TT 7 }K€pcti TG? 0:a> ; which expression in itself is sufficiently clear, and is also good 
Greek ; but if we compare the corresponding expression in the Hebrew, its true meaning 
is, that he walked with God. In rendering this clause by evypeerrtffcej/at rai 0 ea?, the Greek 
translator did not render the Hebrew verbatim , for in that case he would have said Trepjg-rraTTjc'e 
cvv ©ea> ; but he translated it correctly as to the sense. Enoch pleased God , because he lived 
habitually as in the sight of God, setting him always before his eyes in every thing he said, 
thought, and did. In Psal. ii. 1. the Septuagint version runs thus, I pan etppva^av eBirt\ 9 
■why dul the nations rage ? Now' though this expression is good Greek, it does not fully 
render the original Hebrew, which means, why do the nations furiously and tumultuously 
assemble together, or rebel? The Septuagint therefore is not sufficiently close. Once more, 
the expression ovk ovres, they are not , is good Greek, but admits ot various meanings, indi- 
cating those who are not yet in existence, those who are already deceased, or, figuratively, 
persons of no authority. This expression occurs both in the Septuagint version of Jer. 
xxxi. 15. and also in lMatt.ii. 18. If we compare the original Hebrew, we shall find that 
it is to be limited to those who are dead. Hence it will be evident that the collation of the 
original Hebrew will not only prevent us from taking words either in too lax or too strict 
a sense, but will also guard us against uncertainty as to their meaning, and lead us to that 
very sense w’hich the sacred writer intended. 

Besides the Hebraisms, which we have just considered, there are 
found iu the Neiv Testament various Rabbinical, Syriac, Persic, 
Latin, and other idioms and words, which are respectively denomi- 
nated Rabbinisms, Syriasms, Persisms, Latinisms, &c. &c. on which 
it may not be improper to offer a few remarks. 

1. Rabbinisms . — We have already seen that during, and subse- 
quent to, the Babylonian captivity, the Jewish language sustained 
very considerable changes. 1 New words, new sentences, and new 
expressions were introduced, especially terms of science, which Moses 
or Isaiah would have as little understood, as Cicero or Caesar would 
a system of philosophy or theology composed in the language of the 
schools. This New flebrew language is called Talmudical, or Rab- 
binical, from the writings in which it is used ; and, although these 
writings are of much later date than the New Testament, yet, from 
the coincidence of expressions, it is not improbable that, even in the 
time of Christ, this was the learned language of the Rabbins. 2 
Lightfoot, Schoetgenius, Meuschen, and others, have excellently 
illustrated the Rabbinisms occurring in the New Testament. 

2. AramceismS) or Syriasms and Chaldaisms . — The vernacular lan- 
guage of the Jews, in the time of Jesus Christ, was the Aramaean ; 
which branched into two dialects, differing in pronunciation rather than 
in words, and respectively denominated the Chaldee or East Ara- 
maean, and the Syriac , or West Aramaean. The East Aramaean 
was spoken at Jerusalem and in Judaea ; and was used by Christ 

1 Sec p. 5. siqwa. 

2 Michaelis, vol. i. p. 129., who has given some illustrative examples. MonAcroases 
super Hermeneutic® Novi Testamcnti, vol. i. p. 208. See also Oiearius de Stylo Novi 
Testament!, membr. iii. aphorism vii. (Thesaurus Theologieus Nov. Test. tom. ii. 
pp. 23, 24.) 

28 O 72 the Original Languages of Swipture. [Part I. Ch. 

in his familiar discourses and conversations with the Jews ; the West 
Aramaean was spoken in cc Galilee of the Gentles.” It was there- 
fore natural that numerous Chaldee and Syriac words, phrases, and 
terms of expression, should be intermixed with the Greek of the 
New Testament, and even such as are not to be found in the Sep- 
tuagint : and the existence of these Chaldaisms and Syriasms, af- 
fords a strong intrinsic proof of the genuineness and authenticity of 
the New Testament. Were this, indeed, tfC free from these idioms, 
we might naturally conclude that it was not written either by men 
of Galilee or Judaea, and therefore was spurious ; for, as certainly 
as the speech of Peter betrayed him to be a Galiloean, when Christ 
stood before the Jewish tribunal, so certainly must the written lan- 
guage of a man, born, educated, and grown old in Galilee, discover 
marks of his native idiom, unless we assume the absurd hypothesis, 
that God hath interposed a miracle, which would have deprived the 
New Testament of one of its strongest proofs of authenticity.” 1 

The following are the principal Aramaean or Syriac and Chaldee 
words occurring in the New Testament : — A Sfia (Abba), Father, 
(Rom. viii. 15.) — A xeXScc^a (Aceldama), the field of blood, (Acts i. 19.) 
— A ( Armageddon ), the mountain of Megiddo, or of the Gospel, 
(Rev. xvi. 16.) — B'/jfoa-Sa (Bethesda), the house of mercy, (John v. 2.) — 
K (Cephas), a rock or stone, (John i. 43.) — KopjSav ( Corban), a gift 
or offering dedicated to God, (Mark vii. 11.) — EX&u, EXou, n 

(Eloi, Eloi , lama sabachthani), my God, my God! why hast thou forsaken 
me? (Matt, xxvii. 46. Mark xv. 34.) — E (Ephphaiha), be thou 
opened, (Mark vii. 34.) — Maputo, (Mammon), riches, (Matt. vi. 24.) — 
M xpclv A0» (Mar an Aiha), the Lord cometh, (1 Cor. xvi. 22 .) — ¥*/.% 
(Raca), thou worthless fellow ! (Matt, v.22.) — T cc7,tBa v.w\u (Talitha cumi), 
maid arise ! (Mark v. 41.) 2 3 

3. Latinisms* — The sceptre having departed from Judah,” 
(Gen, xlix. 10.) by the reduction of Judaea into a Roman province, 
the extension of the Roman laws and government would naturally 
follow the success of the Roman arms : and if to these we add the 
imposition of tribute by the conquerors, together with the commer- 
cial intercourse necessarily consequent on the political relations of the 
Jews with Rome, we shall be enabled readily to account for the Latin- 
isms, or Latin words and phrases, that occur in the New Testament. 

The following is a li$t of the principal Latinisms : — Aa-aapiav ( assarion , 
from the Latin word assarius), equivalent to about three quarters of a 
farthing of our money, (Matt. x. 29. Luke xii. 6.) — K^o-o? (census), as- 

1 Michaelis, vol. i. p. 135. Morus, vol. i. p. 237. Arigler, Hermeneuticce Bibliea, 
pp. 83—88. Bishop Marsh, in his notes to Michaelis, states, that a new branch of the 

Aramaean language has been discovered by Professor Adler, which differs in some respects 
from the East and West Aramaean dialects. For an account of it, he refers to the third 
part of M. Adler’s Novi Testamenti Versiones Syriacce , Simplex, JPhiloxeniana, et Hkroso- 
lymilana, denim examinotce , cjc. 4to. Hafnise, 1789, of which work we have not been able 
to obtain a sight. Pfeiffer has an amusing disquisition on the Galilaean dialect of Peter, 
which in substance corresponds with the above-cited remark of Michaelis, though Pfeiffer 
does not seem to have known the exact names of the dialects then in use among the Jews. 
Op. tom. i. pp. 616 — 622. 

3 Additional examples of Chaldaisms and Syriasms may be seen in Olearius de Stylo 
Novi Testamenti, merabr. iii. aphorism vi. (Thesaurus Theologico- Philologicus, tom. ii. 
pp. 22, 23.) 


I. Sect. II.] Latinisms of the Ne*w Testament . 

sessment or rate, (Matt. xvii. 25.) — K eyravpiav (centurio), a centurion, 
(Mark xv. 39. 44, 45.) — K akavta ( colonia ), a colony, (Acts xvi. 12.) — 
(< custodia ), a guard of soldiers, (Matt, xxvii. 65, 66. xxviii. 11.) 
— A (denarius), a Roman penny, equivalent to about seven-pence 
halfpenny of our money, (Luke vii.41 .) — ^soyshXtov ( flagellum ), a scourge, 
(Johnii. 15.); from this word is derived fypciy&Xou, to scourge with whips, 
(Matt, xxvii. 26. Mark xv. 15.) As this was a Roman punishment, it is 
no wonder that we find it expressed by a term nearly Roman. — lovcrloq 
(Justus), (Acts i. 23.) — Asyzav ( legio ), a legion, (Matt, xxvi. 53.) — 
Kolpavrr^ ( quadrans ) a Roman coin equivalent to about three fourths of 
an English halfpenny, (Matt. v. 26.) — A ifteprwoq (liber tin us), a freed man, 
(Acts vi. 9.) — Airsoe, (libra), a pound, (John xii. 3.) — Aevreov (linteum), 
a towel, (John xiii. 4.) — M uv.t/Xw (?nacellum) 9 shambles, (1 Cor. x. 25.) — 
ISUpfipaya, (membrana), parchment, (2 Tim. iv. 13.) — M tXtov (mille), a mile; 
the Roman mile consisting of a thousand paces, (Matt. v. 41.) — Berryt 
(sextarius), a kind of pot, (Mark vii. 4. 8.) — n peuTopwv ( prcetorium ), a 
judgment-hall, or place where the praetor or other chief magistrate 
heard and determined causes, (Matt, xxvii. 27.) — 'S^iy.ty^tov or 
(. semicinctium ), an apron, (Acts xix. 12.) — Hiv.aptoq (sicarius), an assassin, 
(Acts xxi. 38.) — 'Lovuapioy (sudarium), a napkin, or handkerchief, (Luke 
xix. 20.) — IvEy.ovXansp (speculator), a soldier employed as an executioner , 
(Mark vi. 27.) — T atspva ( taberna ), a tavern, (Acts xxviii. 15.) — TjtAos 
(tit ulus), a title, (John xix. 19, 20.) 1 

4. From the unavoidable intercourse of the Jews with the neigh- 
bouring nations, the Arabs, Persians (to whose sovereigns they 
were formerly subject), and the inhabitants of Asia Minor, numerous 
words, and occasional expressions may be traced in the New Tes- 
tament, which have been thus necessarily introduced among the 
Jews. These words, however, are not sufficiently numerous to 
constitute so many entire dialects : for instance, there are not more 
than four or five Persian words in the whole of the New Testament. 
These cannot, therefore, be in strictness termed Persisms; and, 
though the profoundly learned Michaelis is of opinion that the 
Zend-avesta, or antient book of the Zoroastrian religion, translated 
by M. Anquetil du Perron, throws considerable light on the phrase- 
ology of Saint John’s writings ; yet, as the authenticity of that work 
has been disproved by eminent orientalists, it cannot (we apprehend) 
be with propriety applied to the elucidation of the New Testament. 
From the number of words used by Saint Paul in peculiar senses, 
as well as words not ordinarily occurring in Greek writers, Mi- 
chaelis is of opinion (after Jerome) that they w T ere provincial idioms 
used in Cilicia in the age in which he lived ,* and hence he deno- 
minates them Cilicisms. 2 

The preceding considerations and examples may suffice to convey 

1 Pritii Introductio ad Lectionem Novi Testamenti, pp. 320 322. Olearius sect. 2. 

memb.iii. aph. ix. pp. 24, 25 . Arigler, Hermeneutica Biblica, p. 99 . Michaelis, vol. L 
pp. 16 2—173. Morus, vol. i. pp. 235, 236 . Olearius and Michaelis have collected 
numerous instances of Latinising phrases occurring in the New Testament, which want of 
room compels us to omit. Full elucidations of the various idioms above cited are given 
by Schleusner and Parkhurst in their Lexicons to the New Testament. The Graco- 
Barbara Novi Testamenti (l6mo. Amsterdam, 1649,) of Cheitomaeus, may also be con- 
sulted when it can be met with. * 

s Michaelis, vol. i. pp, 14$ — 162, 


On the Cognate or Kindred Languages . [Part I. Ch. 

some idea of the genius of the Greek language of the New Testa- 
ment. For an account of the principal editions of the Greek Tes- 
tament, see the Appendix to this Volume, pp. 10 — 27.; and for the 
most useful Lexicons that can be consulted, see pp. 168 — 172. 



1. The Aramcean , with its two dialects ; 1. The Chaldee ; 2. The Syriac . 

— II. The Arabic , with its derivative , the Ethiopic . — III. Use and 

importance of the Cognate Languages to Sacred Criticism . 

THE Cognate or Kitidred Languages are those which are allied to 
the Hebrew, as being sister-dialects of the Shemitish languages, all 
of which preserve nearly the same structure and analogy. The prin- 
cipal cognate languages are the Aramaean, and the Arabic, with their 
respective dialects or derivatives. 

1. The Araaoean Language (which in the authorised English 
version of 2 Kings xviii. 26., and Dan. ii. 4., is rendered the Syrian 
or Syriack) derives its name from the very extensive region of Aram, in 
which it was antiently vernacular. As that region extended from the 
Mediterranean sea through Syria and Mesopotamia, beyond the river 
Tigris, the language there spoken necessarily diverged into various 
dialects ; the two principal of which are the Chaldee and the Syriac. 

L The Chaldee , but more correctly, the Babylonian, Assyrian, or 
Eastern Aramcean dialect was formerly spoken in Babylonia and 
Assyria, and was the vernacular dialect spoken in Judaea after the 
captivity of the Hebrews. Besides the portions of the Old Testa- 
ment already stated in page 3, as being written in this tongue, 
numerous Chaldaic words occur in the book of Job, the Proverbs, 
and other parts of the sacred writings, for the correct understanding 
of which the knowledge of Chaldee is necessary. It is further ol 
great use for enabling us to read the Chaldee paraphrases which 
show the sense put by the Jews themselves on the words of Scripture. 1 

2. The Syriac or Western Aramcean was spoken both in Syria 
and Mesopotamia ; and, after the captivity, it became vernacular in 
Galilee. Hence, though several of the sacred writers of the New 
Testament expressed themselves in Greek, their ideas were Syriac ; 
and they consequently used many Syriac idioms, and a few Syriac 
words. 2 The chief difference between the Syriac and Chaldee con- 
sists in the vowel-points or mode of pronunciation ; and, notwith- 
standing the forms of their respective letters are very dissimilar, yet 
the correspondence between the two dialects is so close, that if the 
Chaldee be written in Syriac characters without points it becomes 
Syriac, with the exception of a single inflexion in the formation of 

* Jahn, Element© Aramaics Lingua), p. 2. Walton’s Prolegomena, c. xii. S2 S 
(pp. 559— 562. edit. Dathii.) s * ’ 

3 Masclef, Gramm. Hebr. vol, ii. p. 114. Wotton’s Misna, vol.i. prref. p. xviii. 


I. Sect. III.] On the Cognate or Kindred Languages . 

the verbs. 1 The great assistance, which a knowledge of this dialect 
affords to the critical understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures, is il- 
lustrated at considerable length by the elder Michaelis, in a philolo- 
gical dissertation, originally published in 1756, and reprinted in the 
first volume of MM. Pott’s and Ruperti’s 6C Sylloge Commenta- 
tionum Theologicarum.” Q 

II. Though more remotely allied to the Hebrew than either of 
the preceding dialects, the Arabic Language possesses sufficient 
analogy to explain and illustrate the former, and is not, perhaps, in- 
ferior in importance to the Chaldee or the Syriac ; particularly as it 
is a living language, in which almost every subject has been discussed, 
and has received the minutest investigation from native writers and 
lexicographers. The Arabic language has many roots in common 
with the Hebrew tongue ; and this again contains very many words 
which are no longer to be found in the Hebrew writings that are 
extant, but which exist in the Arabic language. The learned Jews 
who flourished in Spain from the tenth to the twelfth century under 
the dominion of the Moors, were the first who applied Arabic to the 
illustration of the Hebrew language : and subsequent Christian wri- 
ters, as Bochart, the elder Schultens, Olaus Celsius, and others, have 
diligently and successfully applied the Arabian historians, geographers, 
and authors on natural history, to the explanation of the Bible. 8 

The Ethiopic language, which is immediately derived from the 
Arabic, has been applied with great advantage to the illustration of 
the Scriptures by Bochart, De Dieu, Hettinger, and Ludolph (to 
whom we are indebted for an Ethiopic Grammar and Lexicon) J : 
and Pfeiffer has explained a few passages in the books of Ezra and 
Daniel, ^by the aid of the Persian language. 5 

III. The Cognate or Kindred Languages are of considerable use 
in sacred criticism. They may lead us to discover the occasions of 
such false readings as transcribers unskilled in the Hebrew, but ac- 
customed to some of the other dialects, have made by writing words 
in the form of that dialect instead ol the Hebrew form. Eurther, 
the knowledge of these languages will frequently serve to prevent ill- 
giounded conjectures that a passage is corrupted, by showing that 
the common reading is susceptible of the very sense which such pas- 
sage requires : and when different readings arc Joiind in copies of 
the Bible, these languages may sometimes assist us in determimni? 
which of them ought to be preferred, 0 

l Walton, Frol. c. xiii. § 3, S, 4, 5. (pp. 594 — G03.) 

■ii ' T* T lr ^ hin - Ken « ilCti Mi . chaelis Dissertatio JPhilologica, qtu\ Lamina Syriaca pro 

rr° n' bl T r ( IIaIo V. 75c )> in Bott’smid Ituperti’s Sylloge, 

{ ' MiJwi: 0 ’ " 41, I lc edlt01s havu inserted in the notes some additional observations 

Iran Michaelis s own copy. 

S-T PI i'„ 82 ’. ? 3 'J 06 > 107 ’ Walton, Prol. c. xiv. §2-7. 14. (pp. 

63j— 641. <J49.) Bishop Marsh’s Divinity Lectures, part iii. p. 28. W 

Bauer, Heim. Sacr. p. 107. Walton, Prol. c. xvi. §6 — 8. (pp. 674 — 678.) 

so MK l i“? 0Xat “ ,C0,1 * , , l I\ no ’“ G ‘; (°P- tom -i> pp. 420—422. ) and Herm. Sacra, c. vi. 
§ 9. (Ibid. tom. u. p. 648.) Walton, Prol. c. xvi. § 5. (pp. 691, 692.) 

n.-Sma’Tln s Bistitules of Biblical Criticism, p, 63. — For Bibliographical Notices of the 

Volume, pp! 17 3-17 9 C °‘ ,S ° f Uui Co = ,latu languages, see the Appendix to this 


On the Antient Versions of the Scriptures . [Part I. 



N EXT to the kindred languages, versions afford the greatest as- 
sistance to the criticism and interpretation of the Scriptures. “ It is 
only by means of versions, that they, who are ignorant of the original 
languages, can at all learn what the Scripture contains : and every 
version, so far as it is just, conveys the sense of Scripture to those 
who understand the language in which it is written/’ 

Versions may be divided into two classes, antient and modern : the 
former were made immediately from the original languages by per- 
sons to whom they v r ere familiar ; and who, it may be reasonably 
supposed, had better opportunities for ascertaining the force and 
meaning of words, than more recent translators can possibly have. 
Modern versions are those made in later times, and chiefly since the 
reformation : they are useful for explaining the sense of the- inspired 
writers, while antient versions are of the utmost importance both for 
the criticism and interpretation of the Scriptures. The present 
chapter will, therefore, be appropriated to giving an account of those 
which are most esteemed for their antiquity and excellence. 1 

The principal antient versions, which illustrate the Scriptures, are 
the Chaldee Paraphrases, generally called Targums, the Septuagint, 
or Alexandrian Greek version, the translations of Aquila, ‘ Symma- 
chus, and Theodolion, and vdiat are called the fifth, sixth, and 
seventh versions, (of which latter translations fragments only are 
extant,) together with the Syriac, and Latin or Vulgate versions. 
Although the authors of these versions did not flourish at the time 
when the Hebrew language was spoken, yet they enjoyed many ad- 
vantages for understanding the Bible, especially the Old Testament, 
which are not possessed by the moderns : for, living near the time 
when that language was vernacular, they could learn by tradition 
the true signification of some Hebrew words, which is now forgotten. 
Many of them also being Jews, and from their childhood accustomed 
to hear the rabbins explain the Scripture, the study of which they 
diligently cultivated, and likewise speaking a dialect allied to the 
Hebrew, — they could not but become well acquainted with the latter. 
Hence it may be safely inferred that the antient versions generally 
give the true sense of Scripture, and not unfrequently in passages 
where it could scarcely be discovered by any other means. All the 
antient versions, indeed, are of great importance both in the criticism, 
as well as in the interpretation, of the sacred writings, but they are 
not all witnesses of equal value ; for the authority of the different 
versions depends partly on the age and country of their respective 
authors, partly on the text wdience their translations were made, and 
partly on the ability and fidelity with which they were executed* It 
will therefore be not irrelevant to offer a short historical notice of 

1 For an account of the principal modem versions, the reader is referred to the Ap- 
pendix, pp. 53— US. * t 


Ch. II. Sect. I.] Of the Targums , or Chaldee Paraphrases . 

the principal versions above mentioned, as well as of some other an- 
tient versions of less celebrity perhaps, but which have been bene- 
ficially consulted by biblical critics. 



I. Targum of Onkelos ; — II. Of the Pseudo- Jonathan ; — III. The Jeru- 
salem Tar gum; — IV. The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel ; — V. The 
Targum on the Hagiographa ; — VI. The Targum on the Megilloth ; 
— VII, VIII, IX. Three Targums on the Book of Esther ; — X. A 
Targum on the Books of Chronicles ; — XI. Real value of the different 

The Chaldee word Targum signifies, in general, any 

version or explanation ; but this appellation is more particularly 
restricted to the versions or paraphrases of the Old Testament, exe- 
cuted in the East- Aramaean or Chaldee dialect, as it is usually called. 
These Targums are termed paraphrases or expositions, because they 
are rather comments and explications, than literal translations of the 
text : they are written in the Chaldee tongue, which became familiar 
to the Jews after the time of their captivity in Babylon, and was 
more known to them than the Hebrew itself : so that, when the law 
was cc read in the synagogue every Sabbath day,” in pure biblical 
Hebrew, an explanation was subjoined to it in Chaldee ; in order to 
render it intelligible to the people, who had but an imperfect know- 
ledge of the Hebrew language. This practice, as already observed, 
originated with Ezra 1 ; as there are no traces of any written Tar- 
gums prior to those of Onkelos and Jonathan, who are supposed to 
have lived about the time of our Saviour, it is highly probably that 
these paraphrases were at first merely oral ; that, subsequently, the 
ordinary glosses on the more difficult passages were committed to 
writing*; and that, as the Jews were bound by an ordinance of their 
elders to possess a copy of the law, these glosses were either after- 
wards collected together and deficiencies in them supplied, or new 
and connected paraphrases were formed. 

There are at present extant ten paraphrases on different parts of 
the Old Testament, three of which comprise the Pentateuch, or five 
books of Moses: — 1. The Targum of Onkelos; 2. That falsely 
ascribed to Jonathan, and usually cited as the Targum of the Pseudo- 

J See pp. 5, 6. supra. Our account of the Chaldee paraphrases is drawn up from a 
careful consideration of what has been written on them, by Carpzoy, in his Critica 
Sacra, part ii. c. i. pp, 430 — 481. ; Bishop Walton, Prol. c. 12. sect. ii. pp. 568—^592. ; 
Leusdcn, in Philolog. Hebraao-Mixt. Dias. v, vi. and vii. pp. 36 — 58. ; Dr, Prideaux, 
Connection, part ii, bookviii. sub anno 37. n. a. vol. iii. pp, 531 — 555. (edit. 1718.) 
Kortholt, De variis Scriptures Editionibus, c, iii. pp. 34 — 51.; PferfFer, Critica Sacra, 
cap. viii, sect, ii, (Op, torn. ii. pp. 750 — 771.-), and in his Treatise de Theologia Judaic A, 
&c, Exereit. ii. (Ibid. tom. ii. pp. 862 — 889.) ; Bauer, Critica Sacra, tract, iii. pp. 28S 
*“308.; Rambach. Inst. Herm. Sacrac, pp. 606— 6*11. ; Pictet, Theologie Chretienne, 
tom. i. pp. 145. et seq.j John, Introductio, ad Libros Veteris Fccderis, pp, <59—75. ; and 
Wsehner’s Antiquitates Ebrseorum, tom. i. pp. 156 — 170. 


On the Antient Versions. 

[Part I. Ch. 


Jonathan; and S/The Jerusalem Targum ; 4. The Targum of Jona- 
than Ben Uzziel, (i. e. the son of Uzziel) on the Prophets ; 5. The 
Targum of Rabbi Joseph the blind, or one-eyed, on the Hagiogra- 
pha; 6. An anonymous Targum on the five Megilloth, or books of 
Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and the Lament- 
ations of Jeremiah ; 7, 8, 9. Three Targums on the book of Esther; 
and, 10. A Targum or paraphrase on the two books of Chronicles* 
These Targums, taken together, form a continued paraphrase on 
the Old Testament, with the exception of the books of Daniel, Ezra, 
and Nehemiah (antiently reputed to be part of Ezra) ; which being 
for the most part written in Chaldee, it has been conjectured that no 
paraphrases were written on them, as being unnecessary ; though Dr. 
Prideaux is of opinion that Targums were composed on these books 
also, which have perished in the lapse of ages. 

The language, in which these paraphrases are composed, varies 
in purity according to the time when they were respectively written. 
Thus, the Targums of Onkelos and the Pseudo- Jonathan ar^much 
purer than the others, approximating very nearly to the Aramaean 
dialect in which some parts of Daniel and Ezra are written, except 
indeed that the orthography does not always correspond ; while the 
language of the later Targums whence the rabbinical dialect derives 
its source, is far more impure/ and is intermixed with barbarous and 
foreign words. Originally, all the Chaldee paraphrases were written 
without vowel-points, like all other oriental manuscripts.: but at 
length some persons ventured to add points to them, though very 
erroneously, and this irregular punctuation was retained in the Venice 
and other early editions of the Hebrew Bible. Some further imper- 
fect attempts towards regular pointing were made both in the Complu- 
tensian and in the Antwerp Polyglot ts, until at length the elde^Buxtorfi 
in his edition of the Hebrew Bible published at Basil, undertook the 
thankless task 1 of improving the punctuation of the Targums, accord- 
ing to such rules as he had formed from the pointing which he had 
found in the Chaldee parts of the books of Daniel and Ezra ; and his 
method of punctuation is followed in Bfehop Walton's Polyglott. 

I. The Targum of Onkelos . — It is not known, with certainty, at 
what time Onkelos flourished, nor of what nation he was : Professor 
Eichhorn conjectures that he was a native qf Bab§rIon, .first, because 
he is mentioned in the Babylonish Talmud ; secondly, because his* 
dialect is not the Chaldee spoken in Palestine, but much purer* and 
more closely resembling the style of Daniel and Ezra ; and, .lastly, m 
because he has not interwoven any of those fabulous narratives to 
which the Jews of Palestine were so much attached, and from which 
they could with difficulty refrain. The generally received %pin ion 
is, that he was a proselyte to Judaism, and a disciple -of the celebrates. 
Rabbi Hillel, who flourished about fifty years before* me Chfristjan * 
sera.; and consequently that Onkelos w as contemporary 'with pittff 

1 Simon, Hist, Crit. du Vieux Test. liv. ii. c. viii. has* censured mode 

of pointing the Chaldee paraphrases with great severity ; observing, that h$ ^ould have/ 
done much better if he had more diligently examined manuscripts that were more copfw 

II. Sect. I.] 


Tar gum of Jerusalem. 

Saviour : Bauer and Jahn, however, place him in the second cen- 
tury. The Targum of Onkelos comprises the Pentateuch or five 
books of Moses, and is justly preferred to all the others both by Jews 
and Christians, on account of the purity of its style, and its general 
freedom from idle legends. It is rather a version than a paraphrase, 
and renders the Hebrew text word for word, with so much accuracy 
and exactness, that being set to the same musical notes, with the 
original Hebrew, it could be read in the same tone as the latter in 
the public assemblies of the Jews. And this we find was the prac- 
tice of the Jews up to the time of Rabbi Elias Levita ; who flourished 
in the early part of the sixteenth century, and expressly states that 
the Jews read the law in their synagogues, first in Hebrew and then 
in the Targum of Onkelos. This Targum has been translated into 
Latin by Alfonso de Zamora, Paulus Fagius, Bernardinus Baldus, 
and Andrew de Leon of Zamora. 1 

II. The second Targum, which is a more liberal paraphrase of 
the Pentateuch than the preceding, is usually called the Targum of 
the Pseudo- Jonathan, , being ascribed by many to Jonathan Ben Uz- 
ziel, who wrote the much-esteemed paraphrase on the Prophets. But 
the difference in the style and diction of this Targum, which is very 
impure, as well as in the method of paraphrasing adopted in it, clearly 
proves that it could not have been written by Jonathan Ben Uzziel, 
who indeed sometimes indulges in allegories, and has introduced a 
few barbarisms ; but this Targum on the law abounds with the most 
idle Jewish legends that can well be conceived : which, together with 
the barbarous and foreign words it contains, render it of very little 
utility. From its mentioning . the six parts of the Talmud , (on Exod. 
xxvi. 9.) which compilation was not written till two centuries after 
the birtfeof Christ; — Constantinople , (on Numb. xxiv. 19.) which 
city wciS always called Byzantium until it receivedjts name from Con- 
stantine the Great, in the beginning of the fourth century ; the Lorn-* 
bards* , (on Numb. xxiv. 24.) whose first irruption into Italy did not 
take place until the year 570 ; and the Turlcs^ (on Gen.x. 2.) who did not 
become conspicuous till the nrfkldle of the sixth century, — learned men 
are unanimously of opinion that this Targum of the Pseudo- Jonathan 
could not have been written before the seventh, or even the eighth cen- 
tury. It has been translated into Latin by Anthony Ralph de Cheva- 
lier, an eminent French Protestant divine, in the sixteenth century, 

III. The Jerusalem Targum which also paraphrases the five 
books of Moses, derives its name from the dialect in which it is 
composed. It is by no mean a connected pagaphrase, sometimes 
omitting whole verses, or even chapters ; at other times explaining 
only a single word of a verse, of which it sometimes gives a two- 
fold interpretation; and at others, Hebrew words are inserted with- 
out any explanation whatever- In many respects it corresponds 
with the paraphrase of the Pseudo-Jonathan, whose legendary tales 
are here frequently repeated, abridged, or expanded. From the 

x The fullest information, concerning the Targum of Onkelos, is to be found in the 
disquisition of G. B. Winer, entitled Be Onkioso ejusque Paraphrase Chaldaica Dis* 
sertatio, 4to. Liptdae, 1820. 

D 2 


On th& Antieni Versions . [Part I. Ch„ 

impurity of its style, and the number of Greek, Latin, and Persian 
words which it contains, Bishop Walton, Carpzov, Wolfius, and 
many other eminent philologers, are of opinion, that it is a com- 
pilation by several authors, and consists of extracts and collections. 
From these internal evidences, the commencement of the seventh 
century has been assigned as its probable date ; but it is more likely 
not to have been written before the eighth or perhaps the ninth cen- 
tury. This Targum was also translated into Latin by Chevalier and 
by Francis Taylor. 

* IV. The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel . — According to the 
talmudical traditions, the author of this paraphrase was chief of the 
eighty distinguished scholars of Rabbi Hillel the elder, and a fellow- 
disciple of Simeon the Just, who bore the infant Messiah in his 
arms : consequently he would be nearly contemporary with Onkelos. 
Wolfius 1 , however, is of opinion that he flourished a short time 
before the birth of Christ, and compiled the work which bears his 
name 3 from more antient Targums, that had been preserved. to his 
time by oral tradition. From the silence of Origen and Jerome con- 
cerning this Targum, of which they could not but have availed them- 
selves if it had really existed in their time, and also from its being 
cited in the Talmud, both Bauer and Jahn date it much later than 
is generally admitted : the former, indeed, is of opinion, that its tfte 
date cannot be ascertained; and the latter, from the inequalities of style 
and method observable in it, considers it as a compilation from the 
interpretations of several learned men, made about the close of the 
third or fourth century. This paraphrase treats on the Prophets, 
that is (according to the Jewish classification of the sacred writings), 
on the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Sam. 1 & 2 Kings, who are 
termed the former prophets ; and on Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ez<^pel, and 
the twelve minor prophets, who are designated as the latter ptjfphets* 
Though the style of this Targum is not so pure and elegant as that 
of Onkelos, yet it is not disfigured by those legendary tales and nu- 
merous foreign and barbarous words which abound* in , the lattef 
Targums. Both the language and mfjphod of interpretatiod, how- 
ever, are irregular : in the exposition of the former prophets, the 
text is more closely rendered than in that on the latter, which is less 
accurate, as well as more paraphrastical, anc| interspersed with some 
traditions and fabulous legends. In order to attach the greater au- * 
thority to the Targum of Jonathan Bep Uzziel, the Jews, not satisfied * 
with making him contemporary with the prophets Malachi, Zacha- 
riah, and Haggai, and asserting that he received it from theirjips, 
have related, that #hile Jonathan was composing his paraphrase 
there was an earthquake for forty leagues around him ; andfeat \f 
any bird happened to pass over hifh, or a fly alighted on his papes» 
'while writing, they were immediately consumed by fire from heavep,* 
without any injury being sustained either by his person or his 

whole of this Targum was translated into Latin by Alfeso de^ 


1 Bibliotheca Hebraic©, tom, i, p. 1 160. 


II. Seel. I.] Targums on the Cetubim , Megillotk , and Esther . 37 

Zamora, Andrea de Leon, and Conrad Pellican ; and the paraphrase 
on the twelve minor prophets, by Immanuel Tremellius. 

V. The Targum on the Cetubim , Hagiographa , or Ploly Writings, 
is ascribed by some Jewish writers to Itqf Jose , or Rabbi Joseph, 
snrnamed the one-eyed or blind, who is said to have been at the head 
of the academy at Sera, in the third century; though others affirm 
that its author is unknown. The style is barbarous, impure, and very 
unequal, interspersed with numerous digressions and legendary nar- 
ratives : on which account the younger Ruxtorf, and after him Bauer 
and Jahn, are of opinion that the whole is a compilation of later' 
times : and this sentiment appears to be the most correct. Dr. Pri- 
deaux characterises its language as the most corrupt Chaldee of the 
Jerusalem dialect. The translators of the preceding Targum,' toge- 
ther with Arias Montanus, have given a Latin version of this Targum. 

VI. The Targum on the Megillotk , or five books of Ecclesiastes, 
Song of Songs, Lamentations of Jeremiah, Ruth, and Esther, is evi- 
dently a compilation by several persons: the barbarism of its style, 
numerous digressions, and idle legends which are inserted, all con- 
cur to prove it to be of late date, and certainly not earlier than the 
sixth century. The paraphrase on the book of Ruth and the La- 
mentations of Jeremiah is the best executed portion : Ecclesiastes is 
more freely paraphrased ; but the text of the Song of Solomon is 
absolutely lost amidst the diffuse circumscription of its author, and 
his dull glosses and fabulous additions. 

VII. VIII, IX. The three Targums on ihe booh of Esther . — This 
book has always been held ip the highest estimation by the Jews ; 
which circumstance induced them to translate it repeatedly into the 
Chaldee dktlect. Three* paraphrases on it have been printed: one 
in the An twerp Polyglott, whieft is fhuch shorter ancf contains fewer 
digressions than the others; another in Bishop Waltcufs Polyglott, 
which is more diffuse, and comprises more numerous Jewish tables 
and traditions; and a third, of which a Latin Version was published 
by Francis Taylor ; and which, according to Carpzov, is more 
stupid and diffuse than either of the preceding. They are all three 
of very late date. 

X. A Targum on the boohs of Chronicles , which for a long time 

was unknown both to Jews and Christians, was discovered in the 
library at Erfurt, belonging to the ministers of the Augsburg con- 
fession, by Matthias Frederick Beck ; who published it in 1680, 3, 4, 
in two quarto volumes. Another edition was published at Amster- 
dam by the learned David Wilkins (1715, 4to A from a manuscript 
in the university library at Cambridge. It is Wore complete than 
Beck’s edition, and supplies many of its deficiencies. This Targum, 
however, is of very little value ? like all the other Chaldee para- 
phrases, it blepds legendary tales with the narrative, and introduces 
numerous Greek words, such as op^Ao;, a-o^at 9 &c, 

XI. Of all the Chaldee paraphrases above noticed, the Targums 
of Onkelos and Jonathan Bex! Uzziel are most highly valued by the 
Jews, who implicitly receive their expositions of doubtful passages. 
Shickhard, Mayer, Helvicus, Lensden, Hottinger, and Dr. Prideaux, 

i) 3 


On the Antient Versions. 

[Part I. Ch. 

have conjectured that some Chaldee Targum was in use in the syno- 
gogue where our Lord read Isa. lxi. 1, 2. (Luke iv. 17 — 19.); and 
that he quoted Psal. xxii. 1. when on the cross (Matt, xxvii. 46.) not 
out of the Hebrew text, but out of a Chaldee paraphrase. But 
there does not appear to be sufficient ground for this hypothesis : 
for as the Chaldee or East Aramaean dialect was spoken at Jeru- 
salem, it is at least as probable that Jesus Christ interpreted the 
Hebrew into the vernacular dialect in the first instance, as that he 
should have read from a Targum ; and, when on the cross, it was 
perfectly natural that he should speak in the same language, rather 
than in the Biblical Hebrew ; which, we have already seen, was cul- 
tivated and studied by the priests and Levites as a learned language. 
The Targum of Rabbi Joseph the Blind, in which the words cited 
by our Lord are to be found, is so long posterior to the time of his 
crucifixion, that it cannot be received as evidence. So numerous, 
indeed, are the variations, and so arbitrary are the alterations occur- 
ring in the manuscripts of the Chaldee paraphrases, that Dr. Ken- 
nicott has clearly proved them to have been designedly altered in 
compliment to the previously corrupted copies of the Hebrew text; 
or, in other words, that “ alterations have been made wilfully in the 
Chaldee paraphrase to render that paraphrase, in some places, more 
conformable to the words of the Hebrew text, where those Hebifew 
words are supposed to be right, bat had themselves been Corrupted.” 1 
But notwithstanding all their deficiencies and interpolations, the 
Targums, especially those of Onkelos and Jonathan, are of consi- 
derable importance in the interpretation of the Scriptures, not only 
as they supply the meanings of words or phrases occurring but once 
in the Old Testament, but also because they reflect considerable 
light on the Jewish rites, ceremonies, laws, customs, usages, ifcc. men- 
tioned or alluded to in both Testaments. But it is in establishing 
the genuine meaning of particular prophecies relative to the Mes- ’ 
siah, in opposition to the false explications of the Jews and Anti- 
trinitarians, that these Targums are pre-eminently useful. Bishop 
Walton, Dr. Prideaux, Pfeiffer, Carpzov, and Rambach, hate illus- 
trated this remark by numerous examples. Bishop Patrick, and 
Drs. Grill and Clarke, in their respective Commentaries on the Bible, 
have inserted many valuable elucidations from j|he Chaldee para- 
phrasts. Leusden recommends that no one should attempt to read* 
their writings, nor indeed to learn the Chaldee dialect, who is no# 
previously well-grounded in Hebrew ; he advises the Chaldee text 
of Daniel and Ezra to be first read either with his own C%aldee ** 
Manual or with BbxtorPs Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon; a%r 
which the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan may be perused, with 
the help of Buxtorf ’s Chaldee and" Syriac Lexicon, and of De Lara*s 
work 3 Z>£ Convenientia Vocabulonim JEtabbinicomm cum Greeds et qui- * 
busdam aliis Unguis Europms. Amstelodami, 1648,fto. 2 : * 

— ; — — r*? — — ^ ' 

1 pc. Kennicott’s Second Dissertation, pp. 167 — 193, ,, ^ 

9 * notice of the principal editions of the Chaldee Paraphrases in pp. SSL. 83 . oftfw# 1 

Appendix to this volume. , , ’ 

II* Sect. II.] The Septuagint Greek Version* 




I. The Septuagint ; — 1. History of it; — 2. A Critical Accounf 
of its Execution ; — 3. What' Manuscripts were used by its Authors ; — 
4. Account of the Biblical Labours of Origen ; — 5. Notice of the Re- 
censions or Editions of Eusebius a?id Pamphilus , of Lucian^ and of He* 
sychius ; — 6. Peculiar Importance of the Septuagint Version in the 
Criticism and Interpretation of the New Testament ; — II. Account of 
other Greek Versions of the Old Testament ; — 1. Version of Aquila ; 
— 2. Of Theodotion ; — 3 .Of Symmachus ; — 4, 5, 6. Anonymous 
Versions . — III. References in Antient Manuscripts to other Versions . 

I. AMONG the Greek versions of the Old Testament, the Alex- 
andrian or Septuagint, as it is generally termed, is the most 
antient and valuable; and was held in so much esteem both by 
the Jews and by the first Christians, as to be constantly read in 
the synagogues and churches. Hence it is uniformly cited by the 
early fathers, whether Greek or Latin, and from this version all the 
translations into other languages, which were antiently approved by 
the Christian Church, were executed (with the exception of the 
Syriac), as the Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Gothic, and Old Italic 
or the Latin version in use before the time of Jerome : and to this 
day the Septuagint is exclusively read in the Greek and most other 
Oriental churches. 1 This version has derived its name either from 
the Jewish account of seventy-two persons having been employed to 
make it, or from its having received the approbation of the Sanhe- 
drin, or great council of the Jews, which consisted of seventy, or, more 
correctly, of seventy-two persons. — Much uncertainty, however, has 
prevailed concerning the real history of this antient version: and 
while some have strenuously advocated its miraculous and divine 
origin, other eminent philologists have laboured to prove that it must 
have been executed by several persons and at different times. 

1. According to one account, Ptolemy Phil adelph us, king of Egypt, 
caused this translation to be made for the use of the library which he 
bad founded at Alexandria, at the request and with the advice of the 
celebrated Demetrius Phalereus, his principal librarian. For this 
purpose, it is reported, that he sent Aristeas and Andreas, two distin- 
guished officers of his court to Jerusalem, on an embassy to Eleazar, 

1 Walton, Prol. c. ix. (pp. 333 — 4 6 9. ); from which, and from the following authorities, 
our account of the Septuagint is derived, viz. Bauer, Critica Sacra, pp. 243 — 273. who 
has chiefly followed Hody’s book, hereafter noticed, in the history of the Septuagint ver* 
sion : Dr. Frideaux, Connection, part ii. book i. sub anno 2?7. (vol, ii. pp. 27—49.) ; 
Masch’s Preface to part ii. of his edition of Le Long’s Bibliotheca Sacra, in which the 
history of the Septuagint version 1 is minutely examined; Morus, in Ernesti, vol. ii. pp, SO 

81., 101 — 119. ; Carpzov, Critica Sacra, pp. 481 — 551. ; Masch and Boerner ’sedition of 

Le Long’s Bibliotheca Sacra, partii. vol. ii. pp. 216 — 220., 256 — 304. ; Thomas, Intro- 
ductio in Hermeneuticam Sacrum utriusque Testament!, pp. 228—253. Harles, Brevior 
Notitia Littcraturae Grsocae, pp. 638 — 643. ; and Renouard, Annales de rimprimerie des 
Aides, tom. i. p. 140. See also Origenis Hexapla, a Montfaueon, tom. i. Proelim. Diss. 
pp. 17— <55. A full account of the manuscripts and editions of the Greek Scriptures is 
given in the preface to vol. i, of the edition of the Septuagint commenced by the late 
JRev. Dr, Holmes, of which an account is given in pp. 37, 88, of the Appendix to this 


Antient Versions of the Old Testament . [Part I. Ch. 

then high priest of the Jews, to request of the latter a copy of the 
Hebrew Scriptures, and that there might also be sent to him seventy- 
two persons (six chosen out of each of the twelve tribes), who were 
equally well skilled in the Hebrew and Greek languages. These 
learned men were accordingly shut up in the island of Pharos : 
where, having agreed in the translation of each period after a mutual 
conference, Demetrius wrote down their version as they dictated it 
to him : and thus, in the space of seventy-two days, the whole was 
accomplished. This relation is derived from a letter ascribed to 
Aristeas himself, the authenticity of which has been greatly disputed. 
If, as there is every reason to believe is the case, this piece is a for- 
gery, it was made at a very early period : for it was in existence in 
the time of Josephus, who has made use of it in his Jewish Antiqui- 
ties. The veracity of Aristeas’s narrative was not questioned until 
the seventeenth or eighteenth century : at which time, indeed, bibli- 
cal criticism was, comparatively, in its infancy. Vives \ Scaligcr ~, 
Vati Dale 3 , Dr.Prideaux, and, above all, Dr. Hody 4 , were the prin- 
cipal writers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries who attacked 
the genuineness of the pretended narrative of Aristeas ; and though 
it was ably vindicated by Bishop Walton 5 , Isaac Vossius 6 , Whiston 7 , 
Brett s , and other modern writers, the majority of the learned in our 
own time are fully agreed in considering it as fictitious. 

Philo the Jew, who also notices the Septuagint version, was igno- 
rant of most of the circumstances narrated by Aristeas ; but he relates 
others which appear not less extraordinary. According to him, 
Ptolemy Philadelphus sent to Palestine for some learned Jews, whose 
number he does not specify : and these going over to the island of 
Pharos, there executed so many distinct versions, all of which so 
exactly and uniformly agreed in sense, phrases, and words, as proved 
them to have been not common interpreters ; but men prophetically 
inspired and divinely directed, who had every word dictated to them’ 
by the Spirit of God throughout the entire translation. He adds 
that an annual festival was celebrated by the Alexandrian Jews in 
the isle of Pharos, where the version was made, until his time, to pre- 
serve the memory of it, and to thank God for so great a benefit. 9 
Justin Martyr, who flourished in the middle of the second century, 
about one hundred years after Philo, relates 10 a similar story, with 
the addition of the seventy interpreters being shut up each in his 
own separate cell (which had been erected for that purpose by order 
°f Ptolem y Philadelphus) ; and that here they composed so many 
distinct versions, word for word, in the very same expressions, to the 

1 In a note on Augustine de Civitate Dei, lib. viii. c. 42. 

2 In a note on Eusebius’s Chronicle, no. mdccxxxiv. 

3 Dissertatio super Aristea, de lxx interpretibus, &c. Arnst. 1705, 4to. 

* De Bibliorum Gracomm Textibus, Versionibus Gratis, et Latina Vulgata, libri iv. 
cni prsemittitur Aristeas Historia, folio, Oxon. 1705. 

5 Prol. c. ix. § 3—10. pp. 338—359. 

6 De Lix Interpretibus, Hag. Com. 1661, 4to. 

* In Appendix to his work on “ The Literal Accomplishment of Scripture Pro- 
phecies,” London, 1724, Svo- 

f Dissertation on the Septuagint, in Bishop Watson’s Collection of Theological Tracts, 
vol. in. p, 20. et sea. 

® De Vita Mnsifi. Hb_ fi- 

10 Pnliftnf o/l rinntfle 

II. Sect. II.] The Sqrtuagint Greek Version . 4 1 

great admiration of the king; who, not doubting that this version 
was divinely inspired, loaded the interpreters with honours, and dis- 
missed them to their own country, with magnificent presents. The 
good father adds, that the ruins of these cells were visible in his 
time. But this narrative of Justin’s is directly at variance with se- 
veral circumstances recorded by Aristeas ; such, for instance, as the 
previous conference or deliberation of the translators, and, above all, 
the very important point of the version being dictated to Demetrius, 
Phalereus. Epiphanius, a writer of the fourth century, attempts to 
harmonise all these accounts by shutting up the translators two and 
two, in thirty-six cells, where they might consider or deliberate, and 
by stationing a copyist in each cell, to whom the translators dictated 
their labours : the result of all which was the production of thirty- 
six inspired versions, agreeing most uniformly together. 

It is not a little remarkable that the Samaritans have traditions in 
favour of their version of the Pentateuch, equally extravagant with 
those preserved by the Jews. In the Samaritan Chronicle of Abul 
Phatach, which was compiled in the fourteenth century from antient 
and modern authors both Hebrew and Arabic, there is a story to 
the following effect : — That Ptolemy Philadelphia, in the tenth year 
of his reign, directed his attention to the difference subsisting between 
the Samaritans and the Jews concerning the law; the former receiv- 
ing only the Pentateuch, and rejecting every other work ascribed to 
the prophets by the Jews. In order to determine this difference, he 
commanded the two nations to send deputies to Alexandria. The 
Jews entrusted this mission to Osar , the Samaritans to Aaron , to 
whom several other associates were added. Separate apartments in 
a particular quarter of Alexandria, were assigned to each of these 
strangers ; who were prohibited from having any personaHntercenrse, 
and each of them had a Greek scribe to write his version. ^ Thus 
were the law and other Scriptures translated by the Samaritans; whose 
version being most carefully examined, the king was convinced that 
their text was more complete than that of the Jews. Such is the narra- 
tive of Abul Phatach, divested however of numerous marvellous circum- 
stances, with which it has been decorated by tire Samaritans ; who are 
not surpassed even by the Jews in their partiality for idle legends. 

A fact, buried under such a mass of fables as the translation of 
the Septuagint has been by the historians, who have pretended to 
record it, necessarily loses all its historical character, which indeed 
we are fully justified in disregarding altogether. Although there is 
no doubt but that some truth is concealed under this load of fables, 
yet it is by no means an easy task to discern the truth from what is 
false : the following, however, is the result of our researches concern- 
ing this celebrated version. 

It is probable that the seventy interpreters, as they ate called, 
executed their vesion of the Pentateuch during the joint reigns of 
Ptolemy Lagus, and his son Phijadelphus. The Pseudo-Aristeas, 
Jogphus, Philo, and many other writers, whom it were tedious to 
enumerate, relate that this version was made during the reign of 
Ptolemy II. or Philadelphus ; Joseph Ben Gorion, however, among 


Antient Versions of the Old Testament. [Part I. Ch. 

tlie Rabbins, Theodoret, and many other Christian writers, refer 
its date to the time of Ptolemy Lagus. Now these two traditions 
can be reconciled only by supposing the version to have been per- 
formed during the two years when Ptolemy Philadelphus shared 
the throne with his father; which date coincides with the third and 

fourth years of the hundred and twenty-third olympiad, that is, 
about the years 286 and 2 85, before the vulgar Christian sera. 
Further, this version was made neither by the command of Ptolemy, 
nor at the request nor under the superintendence of Demetrius Pha- 
lereus ; but was voluntarily undertaken by the Jews for the use of 
their countrymen. It is well known, that, at the period above 
noticed, there was a great multitude of Jews settled in Egypt, par- 
ticularly at Alexandria : these, being most strictly observant of the 
religious institutions and usages of their forefathers, had their 
Sanhedrin, or grand council composed of seventy or seventy-two 
members, and very numerous synagogues, in which the law was 
read to them on every sabbath ; and as the bulk of the common 
people were no longer acquainted with biblical Hebrew (the Greek 
language alone being used in their ordinary intercourse), it became 
necessary to translate the Pentateuch into Greek for their use. 
This is a far more probable account of the origin of the Alexandrian 
version than the traditions above stated. If this translation had been 
made by public authority, it would unquestionably have been per- 
formed under the direction of the Sanhedrin: who would have 

examined, and perhaps corrected it, if it had been the work of a 
single individual, previously to giving it the stamp of their appro- 
bation, and introducing it into the synagogues. In either case the 
translation would, probably, be denominated the Septuagint, because 
the Sanhedrin was composed of seventy or seventy-two members. 
It is even possible that the Sanhedrin, in order to ascertain the fide- - 
lity of the work, might have sent to Palestine for some learned men, 
of whose assistance and advice they would have availed themselves 
in examining the version. This fact, if it could be proved (for it 
is offered as a mere conjecture), would account for the story of the 
king of Egypt’s sending an embassy to Jerusalem, There is, how- 
ever, one circumstance which proves that, in executing this trans- 
lation, the synagogues were originally in contemplation, viz. that 
all the antient writers unanimously concur in saying that the Penta- 
teuch was first translated. The five books of Moses, indeed, were the 
only books read in the synagogues until the time of Antiochus Epi- 
phanes, king of Syria : who having forbidden that practice in Pales- 
tine, the Jews evaded his commands by substituting for the Penta- 
teuch the reading of the prophetic books* When, afterwards, the 
Jews were delivered from the tyranny of the kings of Syria, they 
read the law and the prophets alternately in their synagogues : and 
the same custom was adopted by the Hellenistic or Grsecising Jews. 

. % whatever was the real number of the authors of the ver- 
sion, their introduction of Coptic words, (such as ot<p h ay/, patiQav. &c.) 
as well as their rendering of ideas purely Hebrew altogether in the, 
Egyptian manner, clearly prove that they were natives of Egypt, 


II. Sect. IL] The Septuagint Greek Version . 

Thus they express the creation of the world, not by the proper 
Greek word KTI2IS, but by TENE^ES, a term employed by the 
philosophers of Alexandria to express the origin of the universe. 
The Hebrew word Thummim, (Exod. xxviii. 30.) which signifies 
perfections, they render AAH0EIA, truth. 1 The difference of style 
also indicates the version to have been the work not of one but of 
several translators, and to have been executed at different times. 
The best qualified and most able among them was the translator of 
the Pentateuch, who was evidently master of both Greek and Pie- 
brew: he has religiously followed the Hebrew text, and has in 
various instances introduced the most suitable and best chosen ex- 
pressions. From the very close resemblance subsisting between 
the text of the Greek version and the text of the Samaritan Penta- 
teuch, Louis de Dieu, Selden, Whiston, Hassencamp, and Bauer, 
are of opinion that the author of the Alexandrian version made it 
from the Samaritan Pentateuch. And in proportion as these two 
correspond, the Greek differs from the Hebrew. This opinion is 
further supported by the declarations of Origen and Jerome, that 
the translator found the venerable name of Jehovah not in the let- 
ters in common use, but in very antient characters ; and also by 
the fact that those consonants in the Septuagint are frequently con- 
founded together, the shapes of which are similar in the Samaritan, 
but not in the Hebrew alphabet. This hypothesis, however inge- 
nious and plausible, is by no means determinate : and what militates 
most against it is, the inveterate enmity subsisting between the Jews 
and Samaritans, added to the constant and unvarying testimony of 
antiquity that the Greek version of the Pentateuch was executed by 
Jews. There is no other way by which to reconcile these conflict- 
ing opinions, than by supposing either that the manuscripts used by 
the Egyptian Jews approximated towards the letters and text of the J 
Samaritan Pentateuch, or that the translators of the Septuagint 
made use of manuscripts written in antient characters. 

Next to the Pentateuch, for ability and fidelity of execution, ranks 
the translation of the book of Proverbs, the author of which was 
well skilled in the two languages : Michaelis is of opinion that, of 
all the books of the Septuagint, the style of the Proverbs is the best, 
the translators having clothed the most ingenious thoughts in as neat 
and elegant language as was ever used by a Pythagorean sage, to 
express his philosophic maxims. 2 The translator of the book of 
Job being acquainted with the Greek poets, his style is more elegant 
and studied : but he was not sufficiently master of the Hebrew lan- 
guage and literature, and consequently his version is very oft&i 
erroneous. Many of the historical passages are interpolated c^nd 
in the poetical parts there are several passages wanting : Jerome, in 

l xho reason of this appears from Diodorus Siculus, who informs us that the president 
of the Egyptian courts of justice wore round his neck% golden chain, at which was sus- 
pended an image set round with precious stones, which was called Troth, b vpotfvyopevov 
AMeiav, lib.i. c. 75. tom. i. p. 225. (edit. Bipont) Bauer, (Grit. Sacr. pp. 244,245.) 
and Morus, (Acroascs in Emesti, tom.ii. pp. 67-SI.) have given several examples, 
proving from internal evidence that the authors of the Septuagint version were Egyptian. 

'i Michaelis, Introd. to New Test. vol. I p. 113. 


Aniicnt Versions of the Old Testament. £Part L Ch. 

his preface to the book of Job, specifies as many as seventy or eighty 
verses. These omissions were supplied by Origen from Theodo- 
tion’s translation. * The book of Joshua could not have been trans- 
lated till upwards of twenty years after the death of Ptolemy Lagus : 
for, in chapter viii. verse 18., the translator has introduced the 
word youaros) a word of Gallic origin, denoting a short dart or jave- 
lin peculiar to the Gauls, who made in irruption into Greece in 
the third year of the 125th olympiad, or b. c. 278; and it was not 
till some time after that event that the Egyptian kings took Gallic 
mercenaries into their pay and service. 

During the reign of Ptolemy Philometer, the book of Esther, 
together with the Psalms and Prophets, was translated. The sub- 
scription annexed to the version of Esther, expressly states it to 
have been finished on the fourth year of that sovereign’s reign, or 
about .the year 177 before the Christian aera: the Psalms and 
Prophets, in all probability, were translated still later, because the 
Jews did not begin to read them in their synagogues till about the 
year 170 before Christ. The Psalms and Prophets were translated 
by men every way unequal to the task: Jeremiah is the best ex- 
ecuted among the Prophets; and next to this the books of Amos and 
Ezekiel are placed : the important prophecies of -Isaiah were trans- 
lated, according to Bishop Lowth, upwards of one hundred years 
after the Pentateuch, and by a person by no means adequate to the 
undertaking; there being hardly any book of the Old Testament so 
ill rendered in the Septuagint as this of Isaiah, (which together with 
other parts of the Greek version) has come down to us in a bad 
condition, incorrect, and with frequent omissions and interpolations : 
and so very erroneous was the version of Daniel, that it was totally 
rejected by the antient church, and Tbeodotion’s translation was 
substituted for it. Some fragments of the Septuagint version of 
Daniel, which for a long time was supposed to have been lost, were 
discovered and published at Rome in 1772, from which it appears 
that its author had but an imperfect knowledge of the Hebrew 

No date has been assigned for the translation of the books of 
Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings, which appear to have been ex- 
ecuted by, one and the same author; who though he does not make 
use of so many Hebraisms as the translators of the other books, is 
yet not without his peculiarities. 

3. Before we conclude the history of the Septuagint version, it 
may not be irrelevant briefly to notice a question which has greatly 
exercised the ingenuity of biblical philologers, viz. from what manu- 
scripts did the seventy interpreters execute their translation?, 
Professor Tyschen 1 has offered an hypothesis that they did not" 
translate the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, but that it has been 
transcribed in Hebrao-Greek characters, and that from this tran- 
script their version was made: this hypothesis has been examined by 

1772^Svo!7p. 2-?MW2r Hebraicon ™ Vut. Tea. MSS. Guncrikis. U wt ock, 

II. Sect. II.] The Septuagint Gree/c Version. 45 

several German critics, and by none with more acumen than by 
Dathe, in the preface to his Latin version of the minor prophets 1 : 
but as the arguments are not of a nature to admit of abridgment, 
this notice may perhaps suffice. The late eminently learned Bishop 
Horsley doubts whether the manuscripts from which the Septuagint 
version w T as made, would (if now extant) be entitled to the same 
degree of credit as our modern Hebrew text, notwithstanding their 
comparatively high antiquity. “There is,” he observes, “certainly 
much reason to beb’eve, that after the destruction of the temple by 
Nebuchadnezzar, perhaps from a somewhat earlier period, the He- 
brew text was in a much worse slate of corruption in the copies 
which were in private hands, than it has ever been since the revision 
of the sacred books by Ezra. These inaccurate copies would be 
multiplied during the whole period of the captivity, and widely scat- 
tered in Assyria, Persia, and Egypt,- in short, through all the 
regions of the dispersion. The text, as revised by Ezra, was cer- 
tainly of much higher credit than any of these copies, notwithstand- 
ing their greater antiquity. His edition succeeded, as it were, to the 
privileges of an autograph (the autographs of the inspired writers 
themselves being totally lost), and was henceforth to be considered 
as the only source of authentic text: insomuch that the comparative 
merit of any text now extant will depend upon the probable degree 
of its approximation to, or distance from, the Esdrine edition. Nay, 
if the translation of the lxx was made from some of those old ma- 
nuscripts which the dispersed Jews had carried into Egypt, or from 
any other of those unauthenticated copies (which is the prevailing 
tradition among the Jews and is very probable, at least it cannot be 
confuted) ; it will be likely that the faultiest manuscript now extant 
differs less from the genuine Esdrine text, than those more antient, 
which the version of the lxx represents. But, much as this con- 
sideration lowers the credit of the Lxx separately, for any various 
reading, it adds great weight to the consent of the lxx w r ith later 
versions, and greater still to the consent of the cld versions with 
manuscripts of the Hebrew, which still survive. And, as it is cer- 
tainly possible that a true reading may be preserved in one solitary 
manuscript, it will follow, that a true reading may be preserved in 
one version : for the manuscript which contained the true reading 
at the time when the version was made, may have perished since ; 
so that no evidence of the reading shall now remain, but the 
version 2 

The Septuagint version, though originally made for the use of the 
Egyptian Jews, gradually acquired the highest authority among the 
Jews of Palestine, who were acquainted with the Greek language, 
and subsequently also among Christians : it appears, indeed, that the 
legend above confuted of the translators having been divinely inspired, 
was invented in order that the lxx might be held in the greater esti- 
mation, Philo the Jew, a native of Egypt, has evidently followed it in 
his allegorical expositions of the Mosaic law: and, though Dr. Hody 

1 I’ublished at Halle, in 1790, in 8vo. 

a Bishop Horsley's Translation of Hosea, Prcef. pp. xxxvi. xxxvi i. 2d edit. 


Antient Versions of the Old Testament [Part I. Ch. 

was of opinion that Josephus, who was a native of Palestine, cor- 
roborated his work on Jewish Antiquities from the Hebrew text, 
yet Salmasius, Bochart, Bauer, and others, have shown that he has 
adhered to the Septuagint throughout that work. How extensively 
this version was in use among the Jews, appears from the solemn 
sanction given to it by the inspired writers of the New Testament, 
who have in very many passages quoted the Greek version of the 
Old Testament. 1 Their example was followed by the earlier fathers 
and doctors of the church, who, with the exception of Origen and 
Jerome, were unacquainted with Hebrew : notwithstanding their zeal 
for the word of God, they did not exert themselves to learn the ori- 
ginal language of the sacred writings, but acquiesced in the Greek 
representation of them; judging it, no doubt, to be fully sufficient for 
all the purposes of their pious labours. “ The Greek Scriptures were 
the only Scriptures known to or valued by the Greeks. This was the 
text commented by Chrysostom and Theodoret; it was this which 
furnished topics to Athanasius, Nazianzen, and Basil. From this 
fountain the stream was derived to the Latin church, first, by the 
Italic or Vulgate translation of the Scriptures, which was made from 
the Septuagint, and not from the Hebrew; and, secondly, by the 
study of the Greek fathers. It was by this borrowed light, that the 
Latin fathers illuminated the western hemisphere: and, when the 
age of Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, and Gregory successively 
passed away, this was the light put into the hands of the next dynasty 
of theologists, the schoolmen, who carried on the work of theological 
disquisition by the aid of this luminary and none other. So Unit, 
either in Greek or in Latin, it was still the Septuagint Scriptures 
that were read, explained, and quoted as authority, for a period of 
fifteen hundred years.” 2 

The Septuagint version retained its authority, even with the rulers 
of the Jewish synagogue, until the commencement of the first cen- 
tury alter Christ: when the Jews, being unable to resist the argu- 
ments from prophecy which were urged against them by the Chris- 
tians, in order to deprive them of the benefit of that authority, began 
to deny that it agreed with the Hebrew text. Further to discredit 
the character of the Septuagint, the Jews instituted a solemn fast, on 
the 8th day of the month Thebet (December), to execrate the me- 
mory of its having been made. Not satisfied with this measure, we 
are assured by Justin Martyr, who lived in the former part of the 
second century, that they proceeded to expunge several passages 
out or the Septuagint; and abandoning this, adopted the version of 
Aquila, a proselyte Jew of Sinope, a city of Pontus 3 : this is the 
translation mentioned in the Talmud and not the Septuagint, with 
which it has been confounded. 4 1 ° 9 

4. The great use, however, which had been made by the Jews 

a ^ the potations from the Old Testament in the New, see Chapter vTtoita 
3 ° f ? GbreW and Greek Texts of the Psalms, pp, 22 

the Septuagi nt Version 6 Z falZ 't* 0 ^ Inquiry ^ * he P rU90nt State ° f 

Pr ° V pridmf c“ ti0n t ^ ‘ he 1 e! ? tUagint ’ ™ om ‘° h ” “Ssions of Ajuik 1 a nds7mmaciu 9 haS 
Prideauij Connector, vol. ii. p. 50. Lightfoofs Works, vol. ii p. 8o”To7 

II. Sect. II.] 

The Septuagint Greek Version. ’47 

previously to their rejection of the Septuagint, and the constant use 
of it by the Christians, would naturally cause a multiplication of 
copies ; in which, besides the alterations designedly made by the 
Jews, numerous errors became introduced, in the course of time, 
from the negligence or inaccuracy of transcribers, and from glosses 
or marginal notes, which had been added for the explanation of 
difficult words, being suffered to creep into the text. In order to 
remedy this growing evil, Origen, in the early part of the third 
century, undertook the laborious task of collating the Greek text 
then in use with the original Hebrew and with other Greek transla- 
tions then extant, and from the whole to produce a new recension or 
revisal. Twenty-eight years were devoted to the preparation of this 
arduous work, in the course of which he collected manuscripts from 
every possible quarter, aided (it is said) by the pecuniary liberality 
of Ambrose, an opulent man, whom he had converted from the Va- 
lentinian heresy, and with the assistance of seven copyists and several 
persons skilled in caligraphy, or the art of beautiful writing, Origen 
commenced his labour at Caesarea, a. d. 231 ; and, it appears, finished 
his Polyglott at Tyre, but in what year is not precisely known. 

This noble critical work is designated by various names among 
antient writers ; as Tetrapla , Hexapla , Octapla , and Enneapla. 

The Tetrapla , contained the four Greek versions of Aquila, Sym- 
machus, the Septuagint, and Theodotion, disposed in four columns 1 : 
to these he added two columns more, containing the Hebrew text in 
its original characters, and also in Greek letters ; these six columns, 
according to Epiphanius, formed the Hexapla . Having subsequently 
discovered two other Greek versions of some parts of the Scriptures, 
usually called the fifth and sixth, he added them to the preceding, 
inserting them in their respective places, and thus composed the 
Octapla ,■ and a separate translation of the Psalms, usually called the 
seventh version, being afterwards added, the entire work has by some 
been termed the Enneapla . This appellation, however, was never 
generally adopted. But, as the two editions made by Origen gene- 
rally bore the name of the Tetrapla and Hexapla, Dr. Grabe 
thinks that they were thus called, not from the number of the co- 
lumns, but of the versions, which were six, the seventh containing 
the Psalms only . 2 Bauer, after Montfaucon, is of opinion, that 
Origen edited only the Tetrapla and Hexapla ; and this appears to- 
be the real fact. The following specimens from Montfaucon will 
convey an idea of the construction of these two laborious works . 3 

1 The late Rev. Dr. Holmes, who commenced the splendid edition of the Septuagint 
noticed in pp. 37, 38. of the Appendix to this volume, was of opinion that the first column 
of the Tetrapla, contained the K oivtj } or Septuagint text commonly in use, collated with 
Hebrew manuscripts by Origen, and that the other three columns were occupied by 
the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. 

‘J Dr. Holmes thinks that the text of the Septuagint in the Hexapla was not the 
iiotvij as then in use, but as corrected in the Tetrapla, and perhaps improved by further 

3 Origonis Hexapla, Pncl, Diss, tom, i. p. 18. 


Antient Versions of the Old Testament . [Part I. Cli. 


Gen. i. 1. 


E v KetpaXattp efcritfev 
& freos <rvv rov ovpavov 
Kai ervv T7]V yw- 


01 O. 

Ev apxy eicricrev 6 

Ev apxo oiroiriffov 6 

freos rov ovpavov /ecu 

freos rov ovpavov icai 

rrjv yr\v* 

rrjv yrjv. 


Ev ctpXV Giwurev o 
boos rov ovpavov /ecu 
rr)v 7 rjv. 

In this specimen the version or' Aquila holds the first place, as being 
most literal; the second is occupied by that of Symmachus, as ren- 
dering adsensum rather than ad. literam ; the third by the oeptuagint, 
and the fourth by Theodotion’s translation. 





X g 

e b 

II, Sect II.] The Septuagint Greek Version . 4<9 

The original Hebrew being considered as the basis of the whole 
work, the proximity of each translation to the text, in point of close- 
ness and fidelity, determined its rank in the order of the columns : 
thus Aquila’s version, being the most faithful, is placed next to the 
sacred text; that of Symmachus occupies the fourth column; the 
Septuagint, the fifth; and Theodotion’s, the sixth. The other three 
anonymous translations, not containing the entire books of the Old 
Testament, were placed, in the three last columns of the Enneapla, 
according to the order of time in which they were discovered by 
Origen. Where the same words occurred in all the other Greek 
versions, without being particularly specified, Origen designated them 
by A or AO, Aoj7toj, the rest; — Oi F, or the three, denoted Aquila, 
Symmachus, and Theodotion ; — 0* A, or the four, signified AquiJa, 
Symmachus, the Septuagint, and Theodotion; and IT, Uotvrsg, all 
the interpreters. 

The object of Origen being to correct the differences found in the 
then existing copies of the Old Testament, he carefully noted the al- 
terations made by him ; and for the information of those who might 
consult his work, he made use of the following marks — 

1 . Where any passages appeared in the Septuagint, that were not 
found in the Hebrew, he designed them by an obelus — with two 
bold points : also annexed. This mark was also used to denote 
w r ords not extant in the Hebrew, but added by the Septuagint trans- 
lators, either for the sake of elegance, or for the purpose of illus- 
trating the sense. 

2. To passages wanting in the copies of the Septuagint, and 
supplied by himself from the other Greek versions, he prefixed an 
asterisk • x - with two bold points : also annexed, in order that his addi- 
tions might be immediately perceived. These supplementary passages, 
we are informed by Jerome, were for the most part taken from Theo- 
dotion’s translation; not unfrequently from that of Aquila; some- 
times, though rarely, from the version of Symmachus ; and sometimes 
from two or three together. But, in every case, the initial letter of 
each translator’s name was placed immediately after the asterisk, to 
indicate the source whence such supplementary passage was taken. 
And in lieu of the very erroneous Septuagint version of Daniel, 
Theodotion’s translation of that book was inserted entire. 

3. Further, not only the passages wanting in the Septuagint were 
supplied by Origen with the asterisks, as above noticed ; but also 
where that version does not appear accurately to express the He- 
brew original, having noted the former reading with an obelus, 

he added the correct rendering from one of the other translators, 
with an asterisk subjoined. Concerning the shape and uses of the 
lemniscus and hypolemniscus , two other marks used by Origen, there 
is so great a difference of opinion among learned men, that it is 
difficult to determine what they were. 1 Dr. Owen, after Mont- 

1 Montfaucon, Proclim, ad plexapla, tom.i. pp. 36 — 42. Holmes, Vetus Testamen- 
tum Orojcum, loin. i. Pradat. cap. i. sect. i. — vii. The first book of Dr, Holmes’s 
erudite preface is translated into English in the Christian Observer for 1321, vol. xx. 
pp. 544— 548. 610—615, 670'— 683, 746—750. 

VOL. U. E 


Antient Vmions of the Old Testament. [Part I. Ch. 

faucon, supposes them to have been marks of better and more ac- 
curate renderings. 

In the Pentateuch, Origen compared the Samaritan text with the 
Hebrew as received by the Jews, and noted their differences. To 
each of the translations inserted in his Hexapla was prefixed an 
account of the author; each had its separate prolegomena; and the 
ample margins were filled with notes. A few fragments of these 
prolegomena and marginal annotations have been preserved ; but 
nothing remains of his history of the Greek versions . 1 

Since Origen’s time, biblical critics have distinguished two editions 
or exemplars of the Septuagint — the K 01 V 7 ] or common text, with all 
its errors and imperfections, as it existed previously to his collation ; 
and the Hexaplar text, or that corrected by Origen himself. For 
nearly fifty years was this great man’s stupendous work buried in a 
corner of the city of Tyre, probably on account of the very great ex- 
pense of transcribing forty or fifty volumes, which far exceeded the 
means of private individuals : and here, perhaps, it might have pe- 
rished in oblivion, if Eusebius and Pamphilus had not discovered it, 
and deposited it in the library of Pamphilus the martyr at Caesarea, 
where Jerome saw it about the middle of the fourth century. As we 
have no account whatever of Origen’s autograph, after this time, it is 
most probable that it perished in the year 653, on the capture of that 
city by the Arabs : and a few imperfect fragments, collected from ma- 
nuscripts of the Septuagint and the Catenae of the Greek fathers, are 
all that now remain of a work, which in the present improved state of 
sacred literature would most eminently have assisted in the interpret- 
ation and criticism of the 'Old Testament. 

5. As the Septuagint version had been read in the church from the 
commencement of Christianity, so it continued to be used in most of 
the Greek churches: and the text, as corrected by Origen, was tran- 
scribed for their use, together w*ith his critical marks. Hence, in the 
progress of time, from the negligence or inaccuracy of copyists, nume- 
rous errors were introduced into this version, which rendered a new 
oevisal necessary ; and, as all the Greek churches did not receive 
Origen s biblical labours with equal deference, three principal recen- 
sions were undertaken nearly at the same time, of which we are now 
to offer a brief notice. 

The first was the edition, undertaken by Eusebius and Pamphilus 
about the year 300, from the Hexaplar text, with the whole of Ori- 
gen s critical marks : it was not only adopted by the churches of Pa- 
lestine, but was also deposited in almost every library. By frequent 

best • dit ! 0n ’ U ! lhappiI y T. ery rarc ’ of the rcraains of Oigen’s Hexapla, is that of 
Montfaucon^m two volumes, folio* Paris, 1713. The first volume contains a very va- 

whth dl ^ ulsltl ° n ° n the Hebrew text and different antient Greek versions, of 

b T hberaUy ava,Ied ourselves ln ^ preceding and following pages, together 
OrLn ™' nute f ccoullt of Ongen’s biblical labours, and some inedifed fragments of 

pXsinclusiv^ Tl? UCCe 1 tl5G i remamS ° f . the HeXapla > frora Ge * osis t0 & book of 
XT twJ ™ «? T u SeCOnd v , oIume comprises the rest of the Hexapla to the end of 

t t0g er "1 th Greek and Hebrew Lexicons to t he Hexapla. 

bv C F f gen ? ■? rea l : w °rk were reprinted in two vols. 8vo. (Lipsiae, 1769,) 

by C. F. Bahrdt • whose edition has been most severely criticised by Fischer in his Pro- 

5X5 e 77 V oT o r> Gr " dS V lb TT T" T - Littera,um Hebr - MagistriVp. sln^ 

Oipsioe, 1772, 8vo.): it is now but little valued. r 

II. Sect. II.] The Septuagint Greek Version . 51 

transcriptions, however, Origen’s marks or notes became, in the course 
of a few years, so much changed, as to be of little use, and were finally 
omitted : this omission only augmented the evil, since even in the time 
of Jerome it was no longer possible to know what belonged to the 
translators, or what were Origen’s own corrections ; and now it may 
almost be considered as a hopeless task to distinguish between them. 
Contemporary with the edition of Eusebius and Pamphilus was the 
recension of the Koiyrj, or vulgate text of the Septuagint, conducted 
by Lucian, a presbyter of the church at Antioch, who suffered mar- 
tyrdom A. d. 311. He took the Hebrew text for the basis of his 
edition, which was received in all the eastern churches from Con- 
stantinople to Antioch. While Lucian was prosecuting his biblical 
labours, Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, undertook a similar work, 
which was generally received in the churches of Egypt. He is sup- 
posed to have introduced fewer alterations than Lucian ; and his edi- 
tion is cited by Jerome as the Exemplar Alexandrinnm. Syncellus 1 
mentions another revisal of the Septuagint text by Basil bishop of 
Caesarea : but this, we have every reason to believe, has long since 
perished. All the manuscripts of the Septuagint now extant, as well 
as the printed editions, are derived from the three recensions above 
mentioned, although biblical critics are by no means agreed what 
particular recension each manuscript has followed. 2 

6. The importance of the Septuagint version for the right under- 
standing of the sacred text, has been variously estimated by different 
learned men ; while some have elevated it to an equality with the 
original Hebrew, others have rated it far below its real value. The 
great authority which it formerly enjoyed, certainly gives it a claim 
to a high degree of consideration. It was executed long before the 
Jews were prejudiced against Jesus Christ as the Messiah; and it 
was the means of preparing the world at large for his appearance, by 
making known the types and prophecies concerning him. With all 
its faults and imperfections, therefore, this version is of more use in 
correcting the Hebrew text than any other that is extant ; because 
its authors had better opportunities of knowing the propriety and 
extent of the Hebrew language, than we can possibly have at this 
distance of time. The Septuagint, likewise, being written in the same 
dialect as the New Testament (the formation of whose style was in- 
fluenced by it), it becomes a very important source of interpretation : 
for hot only does it frequently serve to determine the genuine read- 
ing, but also to ascertain the meaning of particular idiomatic expi'es- 
sions and passages in the New Testament, the true import of which 
could not be known but from their use in the Septuagint. 13 Grotius, 
Keuchenius, Biel, and Schleusner, are the critics who have most suc- 
cessfully applied this version to the interpretation of the New Testament. 

i Chronographia ab adamo usque acl Dioclesianum, p. 203. 

a Dr. Holmes has given a copious and interesting account of the additions of Lucian 
and Ilesychius, and of the sources of the Septuagint text in the manuscripts of the Pen- 
tateuch, which arc now extant. Tom. i. Praef. cap. i. sect. viii. et seq. 

9 hi the Eclectic Review for 18QG (vol ii. parti, pp. 337 — 347.) the reader will find 
many examples adduced, confirming the remarks above offered, concerning the value and 
importance of the Septuagint version. 


A?itient Versions of the Old Testament . [Part I. Ch. 

II. The importance of the Septuagint, in the criticism and inter- 
pretation of the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament \ will 
justify the length of the preceding account of that celebrated version : 
it now remains that we briefly notice the other antient Greek trans- 
lations, which have already been incidentally mentioned ; viz. those of 
Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, and the three anonymous versions, 
usually cited as the fifth, sixth, and seventh versions, from which 
Origen compiled his Tetrapla and Hexapla. 

1. The Version of Aquila. — The author of this translation was 
a native of Sinope in Pontus, who flourished in the second century of 
the Christian aera : he was of Jewish descent; and having renounced 
Christianity, he undertook his version to oblige the Jews, who then 
began to be disgusted with the Septuagint, as being too paraphrastic. 
It is certain that he lived during the reign of the emperor Adrian, 
and that his translation was executed before the year 160; as it is 
cited both by Justin Martyr, who wrote about that time, and by 
Irenseus between the years 170 and 176. The version of Aquila is 
extremely literal, and is made without any regard to the genius of the 
Greek language : it is, however, of considerable importance in the 
criticism of the Old Testament, as it serves to show the readings 
contained in the Hebrew MSS. of his time. Professor Dathe has 
collated several passages from this translation, and has applied them 
to the illustration of the prophet Hosea. 2 The fragments of Aquila 
and of the other Greek versions were collected and published, first 
by FlaminioNobili, in his notes to the Roman edition of the Septua- 
gint, and after him by Drusius, in his Vetevum l?iterj)retnm Grcecorum 
Fragmenta (Arnheim, 1622, 4-to.) 3 ; and also by Montfaucon in his 
edition of Origen’s Hexapla above noticed. According to Jerome, 
Aquila published two editions of his version, the second of which was 
the most literal : it was allowed to be read publicly in the Jews’ syna- 
gogues, by the hundred and twenty-fifth Novel of the emperor Justinian. 

2. Theodotion was a native of Ephesus, and is termed by Jerome 
and Eusebius an Ebionite or semi- Christian. He was nearly con- 
temporary with Aquila, and his translation is cited by Justin Martyr, 
in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew, which was composed about 
the year 160. The version of Theodotion holds a middle rank be- 

1 <c The Book,” says the profound critic Michaelis, f< most necessary to be read and 
understood by every man who studies the New Testament, is, without doubt, the Sep* 
tuagint ; which alone has been of more service than all the passages from the profane 
authors collected together. It should be read in the public schools by those who are 
destined for the church ; should form the subject of a course of lectures at the university, 
x* 2 ^ constant companion of an expositor of the New Testament.” Introduction to 
the New TesU vol. i. p. 177. — “About the year 1785,” says Dr. A. Clarke (speak- 
ing of his biblical labours), ce I began to read the Septuagint regularly, in order to 
acquaint myself more fully with the phraseology of the New Testament. The study of this 
version served more to expand and illuminate my mind than all the theological works I had 
ever consulted, . I had proceeded but a short way in it, before I was convinced that the 
prejudices against it were utterly unfounded ; and that it was of incalculable advantage 
towards a proper understanding if the literal se?ise of Scripture.” Dr. Clarke’s Com- 
mentary, vol. i. General Preface, p, xv, 

Di !! ert > ati ° P^ 0 ) 0 g^°-Critica in Aquilae Reliquias Interpretationis Hosea;, (Lipsiae. 

4t< N 5 is repented in p. I. et seq. of Rosenmiiller’s Collection of his 

Op u sc u la ad Crisin et Interpretationem Veteris Testamenti,” Lipsim, 1796, 8vo, 
lh is work of Drusius’s is also to be found in the sixth volume of Bishop Walton’s 

II. Sect. II.] VersioJis of Symmachus and others. 53 

tween the servile closeness of Aquila and the freedom of Symmachus 
it is a kind of revision of the Septuagint made after the original He- 
brew, and supplies some deficiencies in the Septuagint; but where he 
translates without help, he evidently shows himself to have been but 
indifferently skilled in Hebrew. Theodotion’s translation of the 
book of Daniel was introduced into the Christian churches, as being 
deemed more accurate than that of the Septuagint. 

3. Symmachus, we are informed by Eusebius and Jerome, was a 
semi-Christian, or Ebionite : for the account given of him by Epi- 
phanius, (that he was first a Samaritan, then a Jew, next a Christian, 
and last of all an Ebionite,) is generally disregarded as unworthy of 
credit. Concerning the precise time when he flourished, learned men 
are of different opinions. Epiphanius places him under the reign of 
Commodus II. an imaginary emperor : Jerome, however, expressly 
states, that his translation appeared after that of Theodotion : and as 
Symmachus was evidently unknown to Irenaeus, who cites the ver- 
sions of Aquila and Theodotion, it is probable that the date assigned 
by Jerome is the true one. Montfaucon accordingly places Syrnrna- 
chus a short time after Theodotion, that is, about the year 200. The 
version of Symmachus, who appears to have published a second edi- 
tion of it revised, is by no means so literal as that of Aquila; he was 
certainly much better acquainted with the laws of interpretation than 
the latter, and has endeavoured, not unsuccessfully, to render the 
Hebrew idioms with Greek precision. Bauer 1 and Morus 2 have 
given specimens of the utility of this version for illustrating both the 
Old and New Testaments. Dr. Owen has printed the whole of the 
first chapter of the book of Genesis according to the Septuagint ver- 
sion, together with the Greek translations of Aquila, Theodotion, and 
Symmachus, in columns, in order to show their respective agreement 
or discrepancy. This we are obliged to omit, on account ofits length ; 
but the following observations of that eminent critic on their relative 
merits (founded on an accurate comparison of them with each other, 
and with the original Hebrew, whence they were made,) are too va- 
luable to be disregarded. He remarks, 

1. With respect to Aquila , (1) That his translation is close and 
servile — abounding in Hebraisms — and scrupulously conformable to 
the letter of the text (2) That the author, notwithstanding he meant 
to disgrace and overturn the version of the Seventy, yet did not scruple 
to make use of it, and frequently to borrow his expressions from it 

2. With respect to Theodotion, , (1) That he makes great use of the. 
two former versions — following sometimes the diction of the one, 
and sometimes that of the other — nay, often commixing them both 
together in the compass of one and the same verse; and, (2) That he 
did not keep so strictly and closely to the version of the Seventy, as 
some have unwarily represented. 3 He borrowed largely from that of 
Aquila; but adapted it to his own style.' And as his style was similar 

i Critica Sacra, pp. 277, 27«. 2 Acroases Hermeneuticse, tom. ii. pp. 127, 12S. 

9 Theodotion, qui in crcteris cum Ixx translatoribns facit. Hicron. Ep. ad Marcell. 

Licet a utem Theodotio Ixx, In terp return vestigio fere semper hfcrcat, &e, Montf. Prncl. 
iu HoA'apl. p. 57. 

h 5 


Antient Versions of the Old Testament . [Part L Ch. 

to that of the lxx, Origen, perhaps for the sake of uniformity, supplied 
the additions inserted in the Hexapla chiefly from this Version. 

3. With respect to Symmachus, (1) That his version, though con- 
cise, is free and paraphrastic — regarding the sense, rather than the 
words, of the original; (2) That he often borrowed from the three 
other versions — but much oftener from those of his immediate pre- 
decessors, than from the Septuagint; and, (3) It is observed by Mont- 
faucon that he kept close to the Hebrew original ; and never intro- 
duced any thing from the Septuagint, that was not to be found in his 
Hebrew copy : but it evidently appears from verse 20. — where we 
read, xsa sysvsro ovrcuc — that either the observation is false, or that 
the copy he used was different from the present Hebrew copies. 
The 30th verse has also a reading — it may perhaps be an inter- 
polation — to which there is nothing answerable in the Hebrew, or 
in any other of the Greek versions. 1 2 

4, 5 5 0. — The three anonymous translations, usually called the 
fifth) sixths and seventh versions, derive their names from the order in 

which Origen disposed them in his columns. The author of the sixth 
version was evidently a Christian: for he renders Habakkuk iii. 13. 

( Thou wentest forth for the deliverance of thy people) even for the deli - 
verance of thine anointed ones 3 ,) in the following manner : E%y)K too 
<rw(rai tov Kaov c rov I y}(tov too X^icrrou c too ; i, e. Thou vsentest forth to 
save thy people through Jesus thy Christ . The dates of these three 
versions are evidently subsequent to those of Aquila, Theodotion, 
and Symmachus : from the fragments collected by Montfaucon, it 
appears that they all contained the Psalms and minor prophets ; the 
fifth and sixth further ,comprised the Pentateuch and Song of Solomon; 
and from some fragments of the fifth and seventh versions found by 
Bruns in a Syriac Hexaplar manuscript at Paris, it appears that they 
also contained the two books of Kings. Bauer is of opinion that the 
author of the seventh version was a Jew. 

III. Besides the fragments of the preceding antient versions, taken 
from Origen’s Hexapla, there are found in the margins of the manu- 
scripts of the Septuagint some additional marks or notes, containing 
various renderings in Greek of some passages in the Old Testament : 
these are cited as the Hebrew, Syrian, Samaritan, and Plellenistic 
versions, and as the version of some anonymous author. The probable 
meaning of these references it may not be improper briefly to notice. 

1. The Hebrew (o Efigtuo;) is supposed by some to denote the 
translation of Aquila, who closely and literally followed the Hebrew 
text: but this idea was refuted by Montfaucon and Bauer, who remark, 
that after the reference to the Hebrew, a reading follows, most 
widely differing from Aquila’s rendering. Bauer more probably 

1 Ea tamen cautela ut Hebraicum exemplar unieum sequendum sibi proponeret j nee 
quidpiam ex editione rwv O. ubi cum Hebraico non quadrabat, in interpretationem suam 
refunderet. Praelim. in Hexap], p. 54. 

2 Owen on the Septuagint, pp. 124 — 126. 

3 Archbishop Newcome’s version. The authorised English translation runs thus : — 
“ Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for the salvation of thine 

II. Sect. IL] 

Various Antient Greek Versions . 


conjectures, that the reference 6 E/3§aiog denotes the Hebrew text 
from which the Septuagint version differs. 

2. Under the name of the Syrian (5 Izvgog) are intended the 
fragments of the Greek version made by Sophronius, patriarch of 
Constantinople, from the very popular Latin translation of Jerome, 
who is supposed to have acquired the appellation of the Syrian, 
from his long residence on the confines of Syria. He is thus ex- 
pressly styled by Theodore of Mopsuestia in a passage cited by 
Photius in his Bibliotheca. 1 

3. The Samaritan (to HaftapsiTixov) is supposed to refer to the 
fragments of a Greek version of the Hebr mo- Samaritan text, which 
is attributed to the ancient Greek scholiast so often cited by Flami- 
nio Nobili, and in the Greek Scholia appended to the Roman edition 
of the Septuagint. Considerable doubts, however, exist concerning - 
the identity of this supposed Greek version of the Samaritan text; 
which, if it ever existed, Bishop Walton thinks, must be long pos- 
terior in date to the Septuagint. 2 

4. It is not known to which version or author the citation 
6 E hXyjvtxog, or the Hellenic, refers : — the mark 6 Aaaoj, or 
6 AvE7riyp<x<pog, denotes some unknown author. 

Before we conclude the present account of the antient Greek 
versions of the Old Testament, it remains that we briefly notice the 
translation preserved in St. Mark’s Library at Venice, containing 
the Pentateuch, Proverbs, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, 
Lamentations of Jeremiah, and Prophecy of Daniel. The existence 
of this version, which was for a long time buried among other liter- 
ary treasures deposited in the above-mentioned library, was first 
announced by Zanetti and Bongiovanni in their catalogue of its 
manuscripts. The Pentateuch was published in three parts, by 
M. Ammon, at Erlang, 1790, 1791, fivo. : and the remaining books by 
M. Villoison at Strasburgh, 1 784, Svo. The original manuscript, Mo- 
relli is of opinion, was executed in the 14th century ; and the numer- 
ous errors discoverable in it prove that it cannot be the autograph 
of the translator. By whom this version was made, is a question 
yet undetermined. Morelli thinks its author was a Jew ; Ammon 
supposes him to have been a Christian monk, and perhaps a native 
of Syria of the eighth or ninth century ; and Bauer, after Zeigler, 
conjectures him to have been a Christian grammarian of Constan- 
tinople, who had been taught Hebrew by a Western Jew. Who- 
ever the translator was, his style evidently shows him to have been 
deeply skilled in the different dialects of the Greek language, and 
to have been conversant with the Greek poets. Equally uncertain 
is the date when this version was composed : Eichhorn, Bauer, and 
several other eminent biblical writers, place it between the sixth and 
tenth centuries : the late Dr. Holmes supposed the author of it to 
have been some Hellenistic Jew, between the ninth and twelfth cen- 
turies* u Nothing can be more completely happy, or more judi- 
cious, than the idea adopted by this author, of rendering the Hebrew 

2 Frol. c. xi. § 22. pp. 552 # £54, 

X 4 

1 Pupej205. edit. Hoeschelii. 

56 Ant lent V&'sions of the Old and New Testaments . [Part I, Ch. 

text in the pure Attic dialect, and the Chaldee in its corresponding 
Doric.” 1 Dr. Holmes has inserted extracts from this version in 
his edition of the Septuagint. 2 



1, Syriac Versions. 1. Peschito or Literal Version. — 2. Philoxcnian 
Version. — 3. Syro-Estrangelo, and Pcdccstino- Syriac Version . — II. 
Egyptian Versions. Coptic, Sahidic, Am mo ni an, and Basmuric. — 

III. Ethiopic Version. — IV. Arabic Versions V. Armenian 

Version. — VI. Persic Versions. 

I. Syriac Versions. — Syria being visited at a very early period 
by the preachers of the Christian faith, several translations of the sa- 
cred volume were made into the language of that country. 

I. The most celebrated of these is the Peschito or Lii&'al (V ETt- 
sio Simplex), as it is usually called, on account of its very close 
adherence to the Hebrew and Greek texts, from which it was im- 
mediately made. The most extravagant assertions have been ad- 
vanced concerning its antiquity ; some referring the translation of 
the Old Testament to the time of Solomon and Hiram, while others 
ascribe it to Asa, priest of the Samaritans, and a third class to the 
apostle Thaddeus. This last tradition is received by the Syrian 
churches ; but a more recent date is ascribed to it by modern bibli- 
cal philologers. Bishop Walton, Carpzov, Leusden, Bishop Lowth, 
and Dr. Kennicott, fix its date to the first century ; Bauer and some 
other German critics, to the second or third century; Jahn fixes it, 
at the latest, to the second century ; De Rossi pronounces it to be 
very antient, but does not specify any precise date. The most pro- 

1 British Critic, O. S. vol. viii. p. 259. 

4 The preceding account of antient Greek versions is drawn from Carpzov, Critica 
Sacra; pp, 552—574 . ; Bauer, Critica Sacra, pp. 273 — 288. ; Moras, Acroases Hennc- 
neutiem, tom. ii. pp.120 — 147.; Bishop Walton, Frolegom. c. ix. §19. pp.385 — 387.; 
Jahn, Introductio in Libros Sacros Veteris Foederis, pp. 66—70. ; and Masch’s edition of 
Lelong’s Bibliotheca Sacra, partii. vol.ii. sect.i. pp. 220— 229. Montfaucon, Prod. 
Diss. ad Origenis Hexapla, tom. i. pp. 46—73. In the fourth volume of the Commen- 
tationes Theologies?, (pp. 195— 263.) edited by MM. Velthusen, Kuinoel, and Ituperti, 
there Is a specimen of a Clavis Reliquiarum Versionum Greecarum , V. T. by John Fre- 
deric Fischer: it contains only the letter A. A specimen of a new Lexicon to the antient 
Greek interpreters, and also to the apocryphal books of the Old Testament, so constructed 
as to serve as a Lexicon to the New Testament, was also lately published by M. E. G. A. 
Bockel, at Leipsic, intitled F r ovre Clavis in Grcccos Interpretes Veteris Tcstamenti, Scrip - 
Moresque Apocryphos^ ita adornatm ut etiam Lexici in JSfovi Fcederis Libras imm prmberc 
possit, atque editionis Ixx interpretum hexaplcms, spedmina , 4to. 1820. Cappel, in his 
' Critica Sacra, has given a copious account, with very numerous examples, of the various 
lections that may be obtained bv collating the Septuagint with the Hebrew (lib. iv, 
pp. 491— 766.), and by collating the Hebrew text with the Chaldee paraphrases and 
the antient Greek versions (lib. v. cc. 1—6. pp. 767— 844. tom. ii. ed. Seharfonberg. 

5 7 

II. Sect. III.] Syriac Versions, 

bable opinion is that of Micbaelis 1 , who ascribes the Syriac version 
of both Testaments to the close of the first, or to the earlier part of 
the second century, at which time the Syrian churches flourished 
most, and the Christians at Edessa had a temple for divine worship 
erected after the model of that at Jerusalem : and it is not to be sup- 
posed that they would be without a version of the Old Testament, 
the reading of which had been introduced by the apostles. The 
Syriac version of the New Testament certainly must have been exe- 
cuted previously to the third century, because the text which it fol- 
lows, according to Professor Hug, does not harmonise with the 
recension adopted by the churches of Palestine and Syria, subse- 
quently to the third century . 2 It is independent, it belongs to no 
family, and sometimes presents the antient and peculiar readings 
of the Vetus Itala y or Old Italic version, or those occurring in the 
Codex Cantabrigiensis. 

The Old Testament was evidently translated from the Original 
Hebrew, to which it most closely and literally adheres, with the ex- 
ception of a few passages which appear to bear some affinity to the 
Septuagint : Jahn accounts for this by supposing, either that this 
version was consulted by the Syriac translator or translators, or that 
the Syrians afterwards corrected their translation by the Septuagint. 
Leusden conjectures, that the translator did not make use of the 
most correct Hebrew manuscripts, and has given some examples 
which appear to support his opinion. Dathe, however, speaks most 
positively in favour of its antiquity and fidelity, and refers to the 
Syriac version, as a certain standard by which we may judge of the 
state of the Hebrew text in the second century: and both Dr. Kennicott 
and Professor De Rossi have derived many valuable readings from this 
version. De Rossi, indeed, prefers it to all the other antient ver- 
sions, and says, that it closely follows the order of the sacred text, 
rendering word for word, and is more pure than any other. As it is 
therefore probable that the Syriac version was made about the end 
of the first century, it might be made from Hebrew MSS. almost as 
old as those which were before transcribed into Greek, and from 
MSS. which might be in some places true where the others were cor- 
rupted. And it will be no w T onder at all, if a version so very antient 
should have preserved a great variety of true readings, where the 
Hebrew manuscripts were corrupted afterwards. Dr. Boothroyd 
considers this version to be as antient, and in many respects as valu- 
able, as the Chaldee Paraphrase 3 : and in the notes to his edition of 
the Hebrew Bible lie was shown that this version has retained nu- 
merous and important various readings. To its general fidelity 
almost every critic ’of note bears unqualified approbation, although it 

1 Introd. to New. Test, vol. ii. part. i. pp. 29 — 38, Bishop Marsh, however, in his 
notes, has controverted the arguments of Michaelis, (ibid, part, ii, pp, 551 — 554.) which 
have been rendered highly probable by the Rt, Rev. Dr, Laurence, (Dissertation upon 
the Logos, pp. 67— 75.) who has examined and refuted the Bishop of Peterborough’s 

a Hug’s Introd. to the New Test. vol. i. pp. 357 — 2(70, CellCricr, Inlrod. an Nouv- 
Test. p. 175. 

1 Biblia Ilebraica, vol. i. Pref. pp. xv. xvi. 

58 Antient Versions of the Old and New Testaments . [Part I. Ch. 

is not every where equal : and it is i^emarkably clear and strong in 
those passages which attribute characters of Deity to the Messiah. 
Jahn observes, that a different method of interpretation is adopted 
in the Pentateuch from that which* is to be found in the Book of 
Chronicles; and that there are some Chaldee words in the first chap- 
ter of Genesis, and also in the Book of Ecclesiastes and the Song of 
Solomon: whence he infers that this version was the work not of 
one, but of several authors. The arguments prefixed to the Psalms 
were manifestly written by a Christian author. 1 The Syriac version 
of the New Testament comprises only the four Gospels, the Acts of 
the Apostles, the Epistles of Saint Paul (including the Epistle to the 
Hebrews), the first Epistle of Saint John, Saint Peter's first Epistle, 
and the Epistle of Saint James. The celebrated passage in 1 John 
v. 7., and the history of the woman taken in adultery (John viii. 
2— 11.), are both wanting. All the Christian sects in Syria and 
the East make use of this version exclusively, which they hold in the 
highest estimation. Micliaelis pronounces it to be the very best 
translation of the Greek Testament which he ever read, for the gene- 
ral ease, elegance, and fidelity with which it has been executed. It 
retains,’ however, many Greek words, which might have been easily 
and correctly expressed in Syriac : in Matt, xxvii. alone there are 
not fewer than eleven words. In like manner some Latin words 
have been retained which the authors of the New Testament had 
borrowed from the Roman manners and customs. This version also 
presents some mistakes, which can only be explained by the words 
of the Greek text, from which it was immediately made. For instance, 
in rendering into Syriac these words of Acts xviii. 7., ONOMATI 
IOT5TOT 2EBOMENOT, the interpreter has translated Titus in- 
stead of Justus, because he had divided the Greek in the following 

An important accession to biblical literature was made, a few years 
since, by the late Rev. Dr. Buchanan, to whose assiduous labours 
the British church in India is most deeply indebted ; and who, in 
his progress among the Syrian churches and Jews of India, dis- 
covered and obtained numerous antient manuscripts of the Scrip- 
tures, which are now deposited in the public library at Cambridge- 
One of these, which was discovered in a remote Syrian church near 
the mountains, is particularly valuable : it contains the Old and New 
Testaments, engrossed with beautiful accuracy in the Estrangelo (or 
old Syriac) character, on strong vellum, in large folio, and having 
three columns in a page. The words of every book arc numbered : 
and the volume is illuminated, but not after the European manner, 
the initial letters having no ornament. Though somewhat injured by 

1 Carpzov, Critica Sacra, pp.623 — 626. ; Leusden, Philologus Hebrajo-Mixtus, pp.67* 
—71. ; Bishop Lowth’s Isaiah, vol.i. p. xci. ; Dr. Kennicott, Diss. ii. p. 355. ; Bauer, 
Critica Sacra, pp. 308—320. ; Jahn, Introd, ad Vet. Feed. pp. 75, 76 . ; Be Rossi, Varico 
Lectionesad Vet. Test, tom, i. prol. p.xxxii. ; Datke, Opuscula ad Crisin et Interpre- 
tationem. Vet. Test. p. 171. ; Kortholt, dc Versionibus Scripturae, pp, 40 — 45,; Walton, 
Proleg. c. 13. pp. 593. et seq. Dr. Smith’s Script urn Testimony of the Messiah, vol.i. 
pp. 396, 397. 

• Hug’s Introd. vol. i. pp. 342, 343. 

II, Sect. III.] 


Syriac Versions. 

time or neglect, the ink being in certain places obliterated, still the 
letters can in general be distinctly traced from the impress of the pen, 
or from the partial corrosion of the ink- The* Syrian church assigns 
a high date to this manuscript, which, in the opinion of Mr. Yeates, 
who has published a collation of the Pentateuch was written about 
the seventh century. In looking over this manuscript, Dr. Buchanan 
found the very first emendation of the Hebrew text proposed by Dr. 
Kennicott 2 , which doubtless is the true reading. 

The first edition of the Syriac version of the Old Testament ap- 
peared in the Paris Polyglott; but, being taken from an imperfect MS., 
its deficiencies were supplied by Gabriel Sionita, who translated the pas- 
sages wanting from the Latin Vulgate, and has been unjustly charged 
with having translated the whole from the Vulgate. This text was 
reprinted in Bishop Walton’s Polyglott, with the addition of some 
apocryphal books. There have been numerous editions of particular 
parts of the Syriac Old Testament, which are minutely described by 
Masch. 3 The principal editions of the Syriac Scriptures are noticed 
infra, in the Appendix, pp. 40, 41. 

The Peschito Syriac version of the New Testament was first made 
known in Europe by Moses of Mardin, who had been sent by Igna- 
tius, patriarch of the Maronite Christians, in 1 552, to Pope JuliusIII., 
to acknowledge the papal supremacy in the name of the Syrian 
church, and was at the same, time commissioned to procure the 
Syriac New Testament. This was accomplished at Vienna in 1555, 
under the editorial care of Moses and Albert Widmanstad, with the 
assistance of William Posted, and at the expense of the emperor Fer- 
dinand I. This Editio Princeps is in quarto. The Syriac New Tes- 
tament has since been printed several times. 

There is also extant a Syriac version of the second Epistle of 
Saint Peter, the second and third Epistles of John, the Epistle of 
Jude, and the Apocalypse, which are wanting in the Peschito: these 
are by some writers ascribed to Mar Abba, primate of the East, 
between the years 535 and 552. The translation of these books 
is made from the original Greek ; but the author, whoever he was, 
possessed but an indifferent knowledge of the two languages. 

2. The Phi boxen i an or Syiio-Pi-iiloxenian Version derives its 
name from Philoxenus, or Xenayas, Bishop of Plierapolis or Mabug 
in Syria, a. n.488 — 518, who employed his rural bishop ( Choreph * 
copus) Polycarp, to translate the Greek New Testament into Syriac. 
This version was finished in the year 508, and was afterwards re- 
vised by Thomas of Harlcel or Heraclea, a. d. 616. Michaelis is 
of opinion, that there was a third edition ; and a fourth is attributed 

l lu the Christian Observer, vol. xii. pp. 17 1—1 74. there is an account of Mr. Yeates’s 
Collation ; and in vol.ix. of the same Journal, pp, 273—275. 348 — 350., there is given a 
very interesting description of the Syriac manuscript above noticed. A short account of it 
also occurs in Dr. Buchanan’s “ Christian Researches/’ respecting the Syrians, pp. 229 
—231. (edit, 1811.) . 

it Gen. iv, 8. And Cain said unto Abel Ms brother , Let us go down into the plain, . It 
jnay be satisfactory to the reader to know, that this disputed addition is to be found in the 
Samaritan, Syriac, Septuagint, and Vulgate Versions, printed in Bishop Walton’s Poly- 

3 Bibl. Sacr. part ii. vol. i. sect, iv, pp. G4— 71. 

60 Antient Versions qfthe Old and New Testaments . [Part I. Ch. 

to Dionysius Barsalibeeus, who was bishop of Amida from 1166 to 
1177. It appears, however, that there were only two editions — 
the original one by Polycarp, and that revised by Thomas of Plar- 
kel; die single copy of the Four Gospels, with the alterations of 
Barsalibseus, in the twelfth century, being hardly intitled to the 
name of a new edition. This version was not known in Europe 
until the middle of the eighteenth century; when the Rev. Dr. 
Gloucester Ridley published a Dissertation on the Syriac Versions 
of the New Testament (in 1761), three manuscripts of which he had 
received thirty years before from Amida in Mesopotamia. Though 
age and growing infirmities, the great expense of printing, and the 
want of a patron, prevented Dr. Ridley from availing himself of these 
manuscripts ; yet having, under circumstances of peculiar difficulty, 
succeeded in acquiring a knowledge of the Syriac language, he 
employed himself at intervals in making a transcript of the Four 
Gospels. These, being put into the hands of the late Professor 
White, were published by him with a literal Latin translation, in 
1778, in two volumes 4to., at the expense of the delegates of the 
Clarendon press at Oxford. In 1779, Professor White published 
from the same press the Acts of the Apostles and the Catholic 
Epistles, and in 1 S04, the Epistles of Saint Paul, also in 4>to. and 
accompanied with a Latin translation. 

The Philoxenian version, though made immediately from the 
Greek, is greatly inferior to the Peschito, both in the accuracy 
with which it is executed, and also in its style. It is, however, not 
devoid of value, “ and is of real importance to a critic, whose object 
is to select a variety of readings, with the view of restoring the ge- 
nuine text of the Greek original: for he may be fully assured, that 
every phrase and expression is a precise copy of the Greek text as it 
stood in the manuscript from which the version was made. But, as it 
is not prior to the sixth century, and the Peschito was written either at 
the end of the first, or at the beginning of the second century, it is of less 
importance to know the readings of the Greek manuscript thatwas used 
in the former, than those of the original employed in the latter.” 1 

3. Of the other Syriac Versions, the Syro-Estrangelo version 
of the Old Testament," and the Palmstino- Syriac version of part of the 
New Testament, are of sufficient importance to deserve a brief notice. 

[i.] The Syro-Estrangelo version is a translation of Origeu’s 
Hexaplar edition of the Greek Septuagint : it was executed in the 
former part of the seventh century, and its author is unknown. The 
late Professor De Rossi, who published the first specimen of it‘ 2 
does not decide whether it is to be attributed to Mar- Abba, James 

1 Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Testament, vol.ii. parti, p.<J8, To Bishop Marsh's 
Notes, ibid. part. ii. pp. 533— o85. vve are chiefly indebted for the preceding account of 
the Syriac Versions of the New Testament. See also Hug's Introduction, vol. i. pp.372 
—386. Dr. G. H. Bernstein’s Dissertation on Thomas of Harkel’s revision of the 
Syro - Philox enian Version, intitled De Versione Novi Testament! SyriacS, Heracleensi 
Commentatio. Lipsiae, 1 822, 4to. 

M. De Rossis publication . is intitled Specimen ineditce ct Hexaplaris Bibliorum 
Versionis, Syro-Estianghete, cum simplici atquc utriusque fontibus, Grteco et Hebneo, 
Collates cum duplici .Latina versione et notis. Edidit, ac diatribam de rarissimo codicc 
Ambiosiano, unde illud haustum cst, pnciuisit Johannes Bcm. Rossi. 8vo. XVinniv, 1778. 

I. Sect. III.] j Egyptian Versions . 61 

of Edessa, Paul Bishop of Tela, or to Thomas of Heraclea. As se- 
manni, ascribes it to Thomas, though other learned men affirm that 
he did no more than collate the Books of Scripture. This version, 
however, corresponds exactly with the text of the Septuagint, espe- 
cially in those passages in which the latter differs from the Hebrew. 
A MS. of this version is in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, com- 
prising the Books of Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of 
Solomon, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Hosea, Amos, Habakkuk, Ze- 
phaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Isaiah : 
it also contains the obelus and other marks of Origen’s Hexapla; and a 
subscription at the end states it to have been literally translated from 
the Greek cop}', corrected by Eusebius himself, with the assistance 
of Pamphilus, from the books of Origen, which were deposited in 
the library at Caesarea. The conformity of this MS. with the ac- 
count given by Masius, in the preface to his learned Annotations on 
the Book of Joshua, affords strong grounds for believing that this is 
the second part of the MS. described by him as then being in his 
possession, and which, there is reason to fear, is irrecoverably lost. 
From this version M. Norberg edited the prophecies of Jeremiah 
and Ezekiel in 1787, 4to. Londini, Gothorum ; and M. Bugati, the 
Book of Daniel, at Milan, 1788, 4to. x 

[ii,] The PALiESTi no- Syriac, or Syriac Translation of Je- 
rusalem, was discovered in the Vatican Library at Rome by M. 
Adler, in a manuscript of the eleventh century. It is not an entire 
translation of the New Testament, but only a Lectionarium. , or col- 
lection of detached portions, appointed to be read in the services of 
the church on Sundays and festival days. It is written in the Syriac 
or Chaldee dialect of Jerusalem, and was evidently made in a Roman 
province : for in Matt, xxvii. 27. the word o-rgotTiwrai^ soldiers , is ren- 
dered by t^ZDTI (Romia), as if the translator had never heard of any 
soldiers but Romans ; and in the same verse o-7rs/g«, band or cohort , 
is rendered by the Latin word castra , NIEODp- These and other 
indications afford reason to think, that the manuscript contains a 
translation made from the Greek, in Palestine ; it was written at An- 
tioch, and from all these circumstances, this version has been deno- 
minated the Jerusalem-Syriac Version. This manuscript has not 
yet been collated throughout, so that it is very uncertain to what re- 
cension it belongs. But, from what is known concerning it, there is 
reason to think that it combines the readings of different families. 2 

II. Egyptian Versions. — From the proximity of Egypt to 
Judaea, it appears that the knowledge of the Gospel was very early 

The specimen consists of the first psalm printed in sis columns. The first contains the 
Greek text of the Septuagint; the second, the Syro-Estrangolo text; the third, the Latin 
text translated from the Septuagint; the fourth, the Hebrew text; the fifth, the Peschito 
or old Syriac text above noticed ; and the sixth, the Latin text translated from this latter 

J Masch, part. ii. vol. i. pp 58 — GO. Jalm, Introd. ad Vet. Feed, pp.76— 18. Monthly 
Review, 0. S. vol. lix. pp. 452— 454. Some other Syriac versions of less note arc de- 
scribed by Masch, ut supra, pp. GO— 62. 

fl Cell<$rior, Introd. auNouv. Test. pp. ISO, 181. Hug’s Introduction, vol. i. pp.386 
—389. A notice of the principal editions of the Syriac Version is given in the Appendix, 
pp. 40, 41. 

62 Antient Versions of the Old and Ne*w Testaments . [Part I. Ch. 

communicated to the inhabitants of that country, whose language was 
divided into three dialects — theCoptic, or dialect of Lower Egypt; the 
Sahidic , or dialect of Upper Egypt; and the Basmuric , or dialect of 
Middle Egypt 

The Coptic language is a compound of the old Egyptian and 
Greek ; into which the Old Testament was translated from the Sep- 
tuagint, perhaps in the second or third century, and certainly before 
the seventh century. Of this version, the Pentateuch was published 
by Wilkins in 1731 ; and a Psalter, by the congregation de Propa- 
ganda Fide , at Rome, in 1744 and 1749. 1 

In the Sahidic language the ninth chapter of Daniel was pub- 
lished by Miinter at Rome in 1786; and Jeremiah, ch.ix. 17. to 
ch. xiii., by Mingarelli, in Reli quire Egyptiornm Codicum in Biblio- 
theca Naniana assermtre , at Bologna, in 1785. The late Dr. Woide 
was of opinion that both the Coptic and Sahidic versions were made 
from the Greek. They express the phrases of the Septuagint ver- 
sion ; and most of the additions, omissions, and transpositions, which 
distinguished the latter from the Hebrew, are discoverable in the 
Coptic and Sahidic versions. 

The Coptic version of the Ne*w Testament was published at Oxford 
in 1716, in 4to., by Daniel Wilkins, a learned Prussian, who has en- 
deavoured to prove that it must have been executed prior to the 
third century; but his opinion has been controverted by many 
learned men, and particularly by Louis Picques, who refers it to 
the fifth century. Professor Hug, however, has shown that it could 
not have been composed before the time of Hesychius, nor before 
the middle of the third century. 2 The celebrated passage (1 John 
v. 7.) is wanting in this version, as well as in the Syriac- Peschito, 
and Philoxenian translations. From the observations of Dr. Woide, 
it appears that the Coptic inclines more to the Alexandrian than the 
Sahidic — that no remarkable coincidence is to be found between 
the Coptic or Sahidic and the Vulgate, — and that we have no reason 
to suspect that the former has been altered or made to conform to 
the latter. 

Concerning the age of the Sahidic version, critics are not yet 
agreed. Dr. Woide, however, has shown that it was most probably 
executed in the second century ; and, consequently, it is of the utmost 
importance to the criticism of the Greek Testament. In a dissert- 
ation on this version, written in the German language, and abridged 
by Bishop Marsh 3 , Dr. W. observes, that there are now in exist- 
ence two Sahidic manuscripts, — one formerly in the possession of 
the late Dr. Askew, the other brought from Egypt by the celebrated 
traveller, Mr. Bruce. The former contains a work, intitled Sophia, 
and written by Valentinus, in the second century. This manuscript 
contains various passages both from the Old and New Testament, 
which coincide with the fragments of the Sahidic version now extant ; 

1 Masch, part. ii. vol. i. pp. 182—190. Jahn, p. 81. The only perfect copy of the 
Coptic Bible now in Europe is said to be in the possession' of Monsieur Marcel. See 
M. Quatrem&re’s Reclierches sur la Langueet la Literature d’Egypte, p. 118. 

2 Hug’s Introd. vol. i. p. 410. 

* Marsh’s Michaelis, vol. ii. part ii. jJp, 595, 596. 


II, Sect 1IL] The Ethiopic or Abyssinian Version . 

whence it is concluded that a Sahidic version of the whole Bible not 
only existed so early as the beginning of the second century, but 
that it was the same as that of which we have various fragments, and 
which, if put together, would form perhaps a complete Sahidic ver- 
sion of the Bible. The other manuscript to which Dr. Woide ap- 
peals, contains two books, the one intitled Bip\o$ tvj yvcoaso^ the 
other, Bj/3Ao£ koyov Kara fjLV<rTY)gtov. Now that this was written by 
a Gnostic, as well as the other manuscript, appears both from the 
title and the contents, and therefore it is concluded that the author 
lived in the second century. And as various passages are quoted 
in it both from the Old and New Testament, Dr. Woide deduces 
the same inference as from the foregoing. Of this version some frag- 
ments of the Gospels of Matthew and John have been published 
by Mingarelli, in a work intitled JEgyptiorum Codicum Reliquice , Ve- 
netiis in Bibliotheca Naniand asservatce. (Bononise, 1715, 4 to.) But 
the completest collection of fragments ©f this version is that prepared 
for the press by the late Dr. Woide, who did not live to publish 
them. The work was completed and edited by the Rev. Dr. Ford, 
from the Clarendon press, at Oxford, in folio, 1799, as an appendix 
to Dr. W.’s fac-simile of the Codex Alexandrinus. 

From the difference of their readings, and from the circumstance 
that additions in the one are omitted in the other,, Bishop Marsh 
infers that the Coptic and Sahidic are independent versions, both 
made from the original Greek. Both, therefore, may be quoted as 
separate evidence for a reading in the Greek Testament 1 

Besides the versions in the Coptic and Sahidic dialects, Father 
Georgi discovered, in a manuscript belonging to Cardinal Borgia, 
some fragments of a version written in a still different Egyptian dia- 
lect, which he calls the Ammonian Dialect. It contains only 1 Cor. 
vii. 36. — ix. 16. and xiv. 33. — xv. 33. Some fragments of a Bas- 
murico-Coptic Version of the Old and New Testament, discovered 
in the Borgian Museum at Velitri, were published by M. Engelbreth 
at Copenhagen, in 1816. Dr. Frederick Miinter has printed the 
Sahidic and Ammoniac texts of 1 Cor. ix. 10—16. in his Commentatio 
de Indole Versionis Novi Testamenti Sahidicte (4to. Hafniae, 1789), in 
parallel columns, in order to present the reader with a distinct view of 
the similarity or difference between the two versions. On account, 
however, of the chief difference consisting in the orthography of single 
words, he is not disposed to assign to the Ammoniac the name of a 
separate dialect. On considering the region where this dialect seemed 
to be vernacular, he was inclined for several reasons to fix upon the 
Oases, particularly the Ammonian Oasis, whence he called it the Am- 
monian Dialect: but Professor Hug, who* has investigated the 
hypothesis of various learned men, is of opinion that the fragments in 
question may possibly exhibit the idiom of Middle Egypt. This 
version was probably executed in the latter part of the third century. 2 

III. The Ethiopic or Abyssinian Version of the Old Testa- 
ment was made from the Septuagint : although its author and date are 

i Marsh’s Michadis, vol. ii. parti, pp. 76— 81. part. ii. pp. 586— 597. 

b Hug’s Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 417—423. For a notice of the editions or pub- 
lished fragments of the several Egyptian versions, see the Appeudix to this volume, p.43. 

64* Antient Versions of the Old and New Testaments . [Part I. Ch. 

unknown, 5 Tet ? fr° m the marks of unquestionable antiquity which it 
bears, there is every reason to believe that it was executed in the 
fourth century. Some peculiar readings occur in this translation : 
but, where it seems to be exact, it derives considerable authority 
from its antiquity. Only a few books and fragments of this version 
have been printed. The first portions of the Ethiopic Scriptures 
that appeared in print, were the Psalms, and the Song of Solomon : 
edited at Rome, by John Potken, a. d. 1,513. The translation of 
the New Testament is supposed to have been made by Frumentius, 
who, about the year 330, first preached Christianity in Ethiopia. In 
1548, the New Testament was printed at Rome by some Abyssinian 
priests, and was afterwards reprinted in the London Polyglott : but 
as the manuscripts used in the Roman edition were old and muti- 
lated, the editors restored such chasms as appeared in the text, by 
translations from the Latin Vulgate. These editions, therefore, are 
not of much value, as they do not present faithful copies of the 
antient Ethiopic text ; which, according to Professor Hug, exhibits 
the appearance either of several versions being united in one copy, 
or of several MSS. (belonging to different recensions) being quoted 
in the composition of this version. 1 

There is, however, reason to expect that, in no long time, the gift 
of the entire Ethiopic Scriptures will be imparted to Abyssinia. A 
manuscript copy of this version, in fine preservation, has been pur- 
chased by the committee of the Church Missionary Society. From 
a memoir on this manuscript by Professor Lee, we learn, that it 
contains the first eight books of the Old Testament, written oil 
vellum, in a bold and masterly hand, in two columns on each page. 
The length of the page is that of a large quarto: the width is not 
quite so great. The volume contains 285 folios, of which the text 
covers 28 2, very accurately written, and in high preservation. On 
the first page is written, in Ethiopic, the invocation usually found in 
the books of the eastern Christians : “ In the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Then follows an account 
of the contents of the book, written in Latin by some former pos- 
sessor, and a date a. d. 1596, 20th September. On the reverse of 
the first folio is found a table, not unlike the tables of genealogy in 
some of our old English Bibles, which seems to be intended to show 
the hours appointed for certain prayers. Then follows the Book of 1 
Genesis, as translated from the Greek of the Septuagint. On the 
reverse of the third folio is the following inscription in Arabic: 
“The poor Ribea, the Son of Elias, wrote it: O wine! to which 
nothing can be assimilated, either in reality or appearance : O ex- 
cellent drink ! of which our Lord said, having the cup in his hand, 
and giving thanks, c This is my blood for the salvation of men/ ” 
Folios 7. & 8. have been supplied, in paper, by a more modern hand. 
On the reverse of folio 8. is a very humble attempt at drawing, in the 

1 Jajm, p. 81. Masch, partii. vol. i. pp. 140— 143. Michaelis, vol. ii. pp. 95 98. 

610 — 614. Hug, vol. i. pp, 426— 428. Walton, Prol. xv. §§ 10—12. pp. 679—685. 
Korthoit, pp. 298— SOI. In Mr. Bruce’s Travels, vol. ii. pp. 416 — 420. (8vo. edit.) 
there is an interesting account of the Ethiopic biblical books. It is not known in whose 
possession the manuscript copy of the Ethiopic version now is, which was brought bv 
Mr. B. from Abyssinia. 13 


II* Sect. III.] The Ethiopia or Abyssinian Version . 

figure of a person apparently in prayer, accompanied by an inscrip- 
tion in Ethiopic, at the side of the figure : cc In the prayers of 
Moses and Aaron, to 1 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, am I, thy ser- 
vant, O Lord, presented in the power of the Trinity, a weak, infirm, 
and defiled sinner. Let them implore Christ.” Under the drawing, 
in Ethiopic : Cb ' In the same manner, every slayer that slays Cain, 
will I l'epay in this ; and, as he slew, so shall he be slain.” . On the 
reverse of folio 98., at the end of the Book of Exodus, are two figures, 
somewhat similar, but rather better drawn, and seemingly by the writer 
of the manuscript ; and, in another place or two, there are marginal or- 
naments. At the end of Deuteronomy is this inscription, in Ethiopic: 
“ The repetition of the law, which God spake to Moses. Numbered 
5070 2 (words). Intercede for your slave Isaac.” — At the end of the 
volume : cc Pray for those who laboured in this book ; and for your 
slave Isaac, who gave this to Jerusalem, the Holy.” Then follows 
an inscription, in Arabic : ec In the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost, one God. O Lord, save thy people 
from every evil ! O our God, Jesus Christ, the speaker to men ! O 
holy people, remember your slave Isaac, the poor : God shall re- 
member you in the mercies of this book. Pray, if God be willing, 
that I may be permitted to see your face. And pray for me, the 
sinner. Pardon my sins, O Lord ! and let my body be buried in 
Mount Sion.” Then follows, in Ethiopic : “ That our enemies may 
not say of us, c We have conquered them be ye prudent. We 
have given you a lamp. Be ye the culture. — Sow ye the flock: 

reap and rejoice.” A few lines have been erased. Then follows 

.... 6C me, Isaac, the poor, in your prayers. It was completed in 
Beth Gabbaza, of Axuma. In thy name, O Lord, have I planted, 
that thou place me not in any other place except Mount Sion ; the 
mount of Christ ; the house of Christians. Let them not be forgotten 
in your prayers, who have read and testified to you. Preserve, O 
Lord, this my offering for me thy servant, the poor; and preserve 
all these books which I offer, that the brethren, dwelling at. Jeru- 
salem, may be comforted. And pray for me 3 , forget me not in the 
holy offices, and in prayer, that we may all stand before God in the 
terrible day and hours. That it might not be written that we 
were wanting, I have previously sent and given you this for the 
warfare of the testimony. Intercede, and bless. And also for the 
refreshing of the record of the Fathers : and also for Cueskam % the 

i As this inscription, which occurs on the supplied leaves, savours of the errors of the 
Romish Church, it was probably written by some Abyssinian Catholic. The inscriptions of 
Isaac, the writer of the MS., though mutilated, and sometimes obscure, seem free from 
these errors. The figure of St. Peter, mentioned below, was probably traced by the same 

^ 2 It is customary among the Jews, Syrians, and Ethiopians, to number the words in the 

books of Scripture. . t e . . . 

3 In most of the eastern churches, it is the practice to enumerate their Saints, in a 

certain part of the Liturgy, . . . , . 

4 The name of a region, a sea, and a mountain, in Ethiopia; so celebrated, as to be 
esteemed by the Ethiopians as preferable to even Sinai or Mount Olivet ; and, as tradition 

vol. n. 


66 Antient Versions of the Old and New Testaments . Part I/Ch. 

queen of the sons of Abyssinia ; that they may be comforted, and 
thence convert our region — may, moreover, migrate into other 
regions, and restore Jerusalem; — and for the Calvary of Mary. 
Let them pray for me* Let it be preserved as the widow’s mite, for 
ever and ever. Let them not sell or exchange ; nor let them carry 

it away ,* nor let them cause it to be placed elsewhere. And ” 

the rest is wanting. Hence it appears, that the book was written at 
Axuma, the antient capital of Ethiopia; and that it was sent by 
Isaac to the Abyssinians residing in Jerusalem. No date appears in 
the manuscript itself. It is, probably, about 300 years old. On the 
reverse of fol. 285. is a drawing, intended to represent Andrew the 
Apostle, with the book of the Gospels in one hand, and the keys 
in the other. Some less ingenious draftsman, however, has, by means 
of the transparency of the vellum, traced out this figure on the first 
page of this folio, and given the name of Peter to his humble repre- 
sentation. He has thus succeeded in assigning to St. Peter the 
first place, and also in bestowing on him the keys. Against this 
picture of Peter is placed his age, 120 years. 

The following fac-simile represents part of the remarkable pro- 
phecy of Balaam. 1 

Num. XXIV. 17. 

,. M ® Yx htoHJZ'tC’ttS. 
java -n:>kiP 

/n£A «*sA«AJii 

says, whither Joseph and Mary, with the child Jesus, betook themselves, making it their 

residence for some time, after the flight into Egypt, Castell, sub voce Ludolf, \ sub voce, 

says it is the name of a monastery in Upper Egypt, which was always had in great vener- 
ation by the Copts and Ethiopians; and where Christ is said to have resided with his 
mother, when he fled from Herod. 

1 Eighteenth Report of the Church Missionary Society, pp. 188, 189. fn p. 190, there 

II. Sect III.] 

Aralic Visions. 


I shall see him , hut not now ; I shall call him blessed , , hut he is not 
near : there shall arise a star out of Jacobi and from Israel shall it 
arise : and he shall destroy the ambassadors of Moaby and shall take 
captive all the children of Seth. 

This precious manuscript has been carefully transcribed, and is now 
printing with a fount of types, cast at the expense of the British and 
Foreign Bible Society, from the matrices (preserved at Frankfort) of 
the celebrated Ethiopic scholar John Ludolph; whose types, as used 
in his printed works, have been highly approved by the Abyssinians, 1 

IV. Arabic Versions. — Although the Christian religion was 
preached in Arabia, as well as in other countries of the East, at an 
early period, yet it never was the established religion of the country, 
as in Syria and Egypt ; for even the temple at Mecca was a heathen 
temple till the time of Mohammed; Historical evidence, therefore, 
concerning the Arabic versions of the Old Testament, does not ex- 
tend beyond the tenth century, when 

1. Rabbi Saadias Gaon, a celebrated Jewish teacher at Babylon, 
translated, or rather paraphrased, the Old Testament into Arabic : 
of this version the Pentateuch was printed at Constantinople, in folio, 
in the year 1 546, in Hebrew characters } and in the Paris and Lon- 
don Polyglotts, in Arabic letters. — The prophecy of Isaiah was pub- 
lished by Paulus in 8vo. at Jena, in 1790, 1791. The remaining 
books of this translation have not hitherto been discovered. Besides 
this, there are several other Arabic versions extant, made immediately 
from the Hebrew, either by Jews, Samaritans, or Christians, of which 
the following are the principal, viz. 

2. The Arabic version of the Pentateuch, published by Erpenius 
at Leyden in 1622, 4to., appears to have been executed in the thir- 
teenth century by some African Jew, who has very closely adhered 
to the Hebrew. 

3. The Arabic version of the Book of Joshua, printed in the Paris 
and London Polyglotts, is, in the opinion of Bauer, made directly 
from the Hebrew. Its author and date are not known. 

4. The Pentateuch, Psalms, and Prophecy of Daniel, were trans- 
lated by Saadia Ben Levi Asnekot, who lived in the early part of the 
seventeenth century : they are extant only in MS. in the British Mu- 
seum 2 , and are of very little value. 

Besides these versions, the Arab Christians have a translation of 
the Book of Job (printed in the Paris and London Polyglotts), and 
two versions of the Psalms, still in MS,, which were respectively made 
from the Peschito or Old Syriac version. All the Arabic books of 
the Old Testament (with the exception of the Pentateuch and Job), 
which are printed in those Polyglotts, were executed from Hesy- 

is an interesting notice of the Ethiopic MSS. of the Scriptures, in the Royal library at 

1 For a notice of such parts of the Ethiopic Version of the Scriptures as have been 
printed, see the Appendix to this volume, p. 44. ; and for other particulars relative to this 
Version, the reader is referred to Mr, Platt’s <f Catalogue of the Ethiopic Biblical Manu- 
scripts in the Royal Library of Paris, and in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible 
Society,” &c. London, 1823. 4 to. 

2 Cat. Harl, MSS. vol, iii. num. 5505. 

68 Aniient Versions of the Old and New Testaments . [Part I. Ck 

chius’s recension of the Septuagint. The Psalms, inserted in Jus- 
tiniam’s Polyglott Psalter, and Gabriel Sionita’s Arabic Psalter, 
were made from Lucian’s recension of that version : and the Arabic 
Psalter, printed at Aleppo in 1 706, 4to., follows the Melchitic 1 re- 
cension of the lxx. 2 

There are many Arabic translations of the New Testament, be- 
sides those which have appeared in print : for since the Arabic lan- 
guage supplanted the Syriac and Egyptian, the inhabitants of tlie 
countries where these had been spoken, have been obliged to annex 
Arabic translations to the antient versions, which are no longer un- 
derstood. These Arabic translations are supposed to have been 
made at different times between the seventh and the eleventh cen- 
turies : in general they were not all executed from the original text, 
but from the versions which they were intended to accompany. Thus 
some which are placed together with the Greek text, have been made 
from the Greek, while others have been made from the Syriac, the 
Coptic, and even from the Latin Vulgate. 3 

V. The Armenian Version of the Old Testament was made from 
the Alexandrian Septuagint: its author was Miesrob, who invented 
letters fully expressive of the Armenian tongue, towards the close of 
the fourth or early in the fifth century. It is said to have been sub- 
sequently altered according to the Peschito or old Syriac version, 
and according to the Latin Vulgate, by Uscan, an Armenian bishop, 
who was specially sent to Amsterdam to superintend the edition there 
printed in 1666’. The translation of the New Testament is ascribed 
jointly to Miesrob, and to the patriarch Isaac, at the end of the fourth 
or early in the fifth century. It was twice translated from the Syriac, 
and then from the Greek ; and that the copies now extant w*ere made 
from the latter language, is evident from their containing those books 
of the New’ Testament which were never admitted into the Peschito 
or antient literal Syriac version. This version, in the opinion of 
Semler, is of great importance, as faithfully representing the Greek 
MSS. whence it was made : but Michaelis observes, that it would be 
an inestimable treasure, had it descended to us unaltered by time and 
superstition. It has in several instances been made conformable to 
the Vulgate by Haitho or Hetbona, sovereign of the Lesser Armenia 
from a. d. 1224 to 1270, who w r as attached to the Church of Rome, 
and skilled in the Latin language. 4 

1 The Melchites were those Christians in Syria, Egypt, and the Levant, who, though 
not Greeks, followed the doctrines and ceremonies of the Greek Church. They were 
called Melchites, that is. Royalists, by their adversaries, by way of reproach, on account of 
their implicit submission to the edict of the emperor Martian, in favour of the council of 
Chaleedon. Mosheim’s Eccl. Hist. voi. ii. p. 18S. note (m). 

2 Carpaov. Crit. Sacr. pp. 640— 644. Bauer, Crit. Sacr. pp. 321 — 324. Jahn, Introd. 
ad Vet. Feed. pp. 78 — 80. Masch, partii. vol. i. pp 103 — 110. 

3 Michaelis (vol. ii. parti, pp. SI— 95.) and Hug (vol. i. pp. 430 — 454.) have gone 
fully into the history of the Arabic versions. For a notice of the principal editions of 
them, see the Appendix to this volume, pp. 41, 42. 

4 Jahn, p. 82. Masch, pp, 169 — 173.; Kortholt, pp. 304, 305. On the present 
state of the Armenian church in India, see Hr, Buchanan’s tl Christian Researches,” 
pp. 341—346. Semler, Apparatus ad Liberalem Novi Testamenti Interpretationem, 
p. 69. Michaelis, vol. ii. pp. 98 — 105. 614 — 617. Hug, vol.i. pp. 394 — 399. 

II. Sect IV.] 

Antient Latin Versions . 

69 , 

VI. Persic Versions. — Although we have no authentic account 
of the conversion of the whole Persian nation to Christianity, yet we 
are informed by Chrysostom and Theodoret, that the Scriptures were 
very antiently translated into the Persian language. It does not ap- 
pear, however, that any fragments of this antient version are extant. 
The translation of the Pentateuch, printed in the 4th volume of 
Bishop Walton’s Polyglott, was executed by a Jew, for the benefit 
of the Jews, in the eleventh or twelfth century. The Hebrew text 
is, for the most part, faithfully rendered. Bishop Walton mentions 
two Persic versions of the Psalms — one by a Portuguese monk at 
Ispahan in the year 1618, and another by some Jesuits from the Vul- 
gate Latin version. 1 These are yet in manuscript. 

There are extant two Persia n Versions of the four Gospels, the 
most antient and valuable of which was first printed in the London 
Polyglott, by Bishop Walton, from a manuscript in the possession of 
Dr. Pococke, dated a. d. 1314 : it was made from the Syriac, having . 
sometimes retained Syriac words, and subjoined a Persian translation. 
The other Persian translation was edited by Wheloc, and after his 
decease by Pierson, at London, in 1652-57, after a collation of three 
manuscripts. It is supposed to have been made from the Greek. 2 



I. Antient Latin Versions of the Sci'iptures. — 1. Of the Old Italic or 
Ante-Hieronymian Version. — 2. Account of the Biblical Labours , 
and Latin Version of Jerome. — 3. Of the Vulgate Version and its 
Revisions . — 4. Critical Value of the Latin Vulgate Version . — II. Gothic 
Version. — III. Sclavonic Version.— IV. Anglo-Saxon Version. 

I. Antient Latin Versions of the Scriptures. — At the com- 
mencement of the Christian oera, the Latin was gradually supplant- 
ing the Greek as a general language, and it soon might be called the 
language of the western church. From the testimony of Augustine 3 , 
it appears that the Latin church possessed a very great number di- 
versions of the Scriptures, made at the first introduction of Chris- 
tianity, and whose authors were unknown ; and that, in the primitive 
times, as soon as any one found a Greek copy, and thought himself 
sufficiently versed in both languages, he attempted a translation of 
it. 4 In the course of lime, this diversity of translation produced 

i Walton, prol. xvi. § § G — S. pp, 692— 695. Kortholt, c, xix. pp. 301— 303. Jahn, 
p, 80. For an account of editions consult Masch, part ii- vol. i. pp- 158 — 164. 

* Michaclis, vol. ii. pp. 105, 106. 617— 619. Sender, p. 69. Walton, Prol. c. xvi. 

§ 9. pp. 695, 696. Hug, vol. i, pp. 389—393. 
s Augustine, de Doctr. Christ. 1. ii. c. 11. 

. 4 These various antient Latin versions, which are frequently termed Ante-Hieronymian, 
and of the manuscripts of which some valuable fragments have been preserved to us in the 
writings of the Fathers, were written in barbarous Latin, and frequently differed greatly. 
One single example, out of many that might be offered, will suffice. Col. ii, 15. as cited 
by Hilary (de Trin. lib. i. c. 13.), runs thus : “ Exutus carncm ex potestates ostentui 
fecit, triu mphatisiis cum ficluci A in semet ipso.” The same passage, as cited by Augustine, 

70 Antient Western Versions of the Scriptures. [Parti. Ch. 

much confusion, parts of separate versions being put together to form 
an entire composition, and marginal notes being inserted into the text : 
but one of these Latin translations appears to have acquired a more 
extensive circulation than the others, and for several ages was prefer- 
ably used, under the name of the Vetusltola or old Italic, on account 
of its clearness and fidelity. 1 This version, which in the time of Je- 
rome was received as canonical, is by him termed sometimes the Vul- 
gate and sometimes the Old , in opposition to the new translation un- 
dertaken by him. He mentions no other version. The Old Italic 
was translated from the Greek in the Old Testament as well as in the 
New, there being comparatively few members of the Western church, 
who were skilled in Hebrew. Prom the above cited expressions of 
Augustine, it has been inferred that the old Italic version was made 
in the first century of the Christian sera ; but the New Testament 
could not have been translated into Latin before the canon had been 
formed, which was certainly not made in the first century : and the 
great number of Hebraisms and Syriasms observable in it, particu- 
larly in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, have induced some emi- 
nent critics to conjecture that the authors of this translation were 
Jews converted to Christianity. 2 There is, however, every reason 
to believe, that it was executed in the early part of the second cen- 
tury : “ at least it was quoted by Tertullian before the close of that 
century. But, before the end of the fourth century, the alterations, 
either designed or accidental, which were made by transcribers of 
the Latin Bible, were become as numerous as the alterations in the 
Greek Bible, before it was corrected by Origen.” 3 

2. To remedy this growing evil, Jerome, at the request, and under 
the patronage of Pope Damasus, towards the close of the fourth cen- 
tury, undertook to revise this translation, and make it more conform- 
able to the original Greek. He executed the revision of the Old 
Testament according to the Hexaplar text of Origen, which he went 
to Caesarea to consult, and the New Testament after the original 
Greek; and completed his task a. d. 390 or 391. Of this revision, 
the Book of Job and the Psalms (which alone have been preserved 
to our times), together with the Chronicles, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, 

(contra Faustum, lib. xvi. c. 29.) stands thus : u Exutus se carnem principals et potes- 
tates exemplavit, fiducialiter triumphatus cos in semet ipso.” Other examples may he seen 
in Hug, vol. i. pp. 454 — 456. 

1 Aiigustine, de Doct. Christ, l.ii. c. 15. This passage of Augustine is suspected to be 
incorrect, and Bishop Harsh, after Bentley, Ernesti, Lardner, and other critics, thinks 
that we craght'to read zVfo for itaZa. (Michaelis, vol.ii, partii. p.623. See also Dr. Lardner’s 
Works, vol. v. pp. 115, 116.) But this conjecture is supported by no manuscript, and is 
also contradicted by the context of Augustine. M. Breyther, who has examined the 
various conjectures and arguments, which have been alleged in support of the reading of 
ilia, determines in favour of Itala as the genuine reading. (Dissert, de vi quam antiquis- 
simse versiones, quae extant, in crisin Evang. IV. habeant, pp. 13 — 24.) Prof. Hug 
also determines in favour of Itala. (Introd. to New Test. vol. i. pp. 460, 461.) 

2 <£ The learned and ingenious Eichhorn, in his introduction to the Old Testament, 
supposes that the first Latin version of the Bible was made in Africa ; where Latin atone 
being understood, a translation was more necessary ; where the Latin version was held in 
the highest veneration ; and where, the language being spoken with less purity, barbarisms 
might have been more easily introduced than in a provincial town in Italy.” Bp. Marsh’s 
Michaelis, vol. ii. partii. p. 628. 

3 Bishop Marsh’s Divinity Lectures, parti, p. 66, 

II. Sect. IV.] Antient Latin Versions. 71 

and Song of Solomon, are all that were ever published; JeromeV 
manuscripts, comprising the remaining books of Scripture* being lost 
or destroyed through the wilful negligence or fraud of some indivi- 
dual whom he has not named. 1 But before Jerome had finished hia 
revisal, he had commenced a translation of the Old Testament from 
the Hebrew into Latin* in order that the Western Christians* who 
used this last language only, might know the real meaning of tl^e* 
Hebrew text, and thus be the better qualified to engage in corftrd^ 
versial discussions with the Jews. 

3. This version, which surpasses all former ones, was executed 
at different times, Jerome having translated particular books in the 
order requested by his friends. We learn from Augustine, that it 
was introduced into the churches by degrees, for fear of offending 
weak persons : at length it acquired so great an authority from the* 
approbation it received from Pope Gregory I., that ever since the 
seventh century it has been exclusively adopted 2 by the Romish 
Church, under the name of the Vulgate version : and a decree of 
the Council of Trent, in the sixteenth century, commanded that the 
Vulgate alone should be used whenever the Bible is publicly read,, 
and in all sermons, expositions, and disputations ; and pronounced ifi 
to be authentic , — a very ambiguous term, which ought to have been 
more precisely defined, than the members of that Council chose to de- 
fine it. “ Upon this ground many contended, that the Vulgate version 
was dictated by the Holy Spirit ; at least was providentially guarded 
against all error; was consequently of divine authority, and more to 
be regarded than even the original Hebrew and Greek texts. And* 
in effect, the decree of the Council, however limited and moderated 
by the explanation of some of their more judicious divines, has given 
to the Vulgate such a high degree of authority, that, in this instance 
at least, the translation has taken place of the original; for these 
translators, instead of the Hebrew and Greek texts, profess to translate 
the Vulgate. Indeed, when we find the Vulgate very notoriously de- 
ficient in expressing the sense, they do the original Scriptures the 
honour of consulting them, and take the liberty, by following them, 
of departing from their authentic guide ; but, in general, the Vulgate is 
their original text ; and they give us a translation of a translation ; by 
which second transfusion of the Holy Scriptures into another tongue, 
still more of the original sense must be lost, and more of the genuine 
spirit must evaporate.” 3 

The universal adoption of Jerome's new version throughout the 
Western church rendered a multiplication of copies necessary ; and 
with them new errors were introduced in the course of time, by the 
intermixture of the two versions (the Old Italic, and Jerome’s or the 
Vulgate) with each other. Of this confusion, Cassiodorus was the 

i Jerome, Ep. 64. ad Augustin. 

s With the exception of the Psalms ■ which being daily chaunted to music in the church 
service, made it difficult to introduce alterations. The Old Italic Psalter, as corrected by 
Jerome, has therefore been used ever since the time of Gregory I, The apocryphal books 
of Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and the two books of Maccabees, are also retained 
from the old Latin version. 

a Bp. Lowth’s Translation of Isaiah, vol. i. Prel, Diss. p. Ixxiii, 

T 4 

72" Antient Western Versions of the Scriptures. [Parti. Ch. 

principal cause, who ordered them to be written in parallel columns, 
that the old version might be corrected by the Vulgate ; and though 
Alcuin in the eighth century, by the command of Charlemagne, pro- 
vided more accurate copies, the text again fell into such confusion, 
and was so disfigured by innumerable mistakes of copyists, — (not- 
withstanding the efforts made to correct it by Lanfranc archbishop 
of Canterbury in the eleventh century, and by Cardinal Nicholas, and 
some other divines, about the middle of the twelfth and in the thir- 
teenth centuries) — that the manuscripts of the middle ages materially 
differ from the first printed editions. 

Robert Stephens was the first who attempted to remedy this con- 
fusion, by publishing his critical editions of the Vulgate in 1528, 1532, 
1534, 1540 i 2 , and particularly in 1545 and 1546. These, especially 
the last, having incurred the censures of the doctors of the Sorbonne, 
John Hentenius, a divine of Louvain, was employed to prepare a 
new edition of the Vulgate: this he accomplished in 1547 in folio, 
having availed himself of Stephens’s previous labours with great ad- 
vantage. A third corrected edition was published by Lucas Bru- 
gensis, with the assistance of several other divines of Louvain, in 1573, 
in three volumes, 8vo., which was also reprinted in 1586 in 4to. and 
8vo., with the critical notes of Lucas Brugensis. The labours of the' 
Louvain divines not being in every respect approved by Sixtus V., he 
commanded a new revision of the text to be made with the utmost 
care: to this work he devoted much time and attention, and corrected 
the proofs himself of the edition which was published at Rome in 1590, 
in folio. The text thus revised, Sixtus pronounced to be the authentic 
Vulgate, which had been the object of inquiry in the Council of Trent; 
and ordained that it should be adopted throughout the Romish 
Church. But, notwithstanding the labours of the Pope, this edition 
was discovered to be so exceedingly incorrect, that his successor 
Gregory XIV. caused it to be suppressed ; and Clement VIII., the 
successor of Gregory in the pontificate, published another authentic 
Vulgate in 1592. This, however, differs more than any other edition, 
from that of Sixtus V., and mostly resembles that of Louvain. These 
fatal variances between editions, alike promulgated by pontiffs claim- 
ing infallibility, have not passed unnoticed by Protestant divines, who 
have taken advantage of them in a manner that sensibly affects the 
Church of Rome; especially Kortholt, who has at great length re- 
futed the pretensions of Bellarmine in favour of the Vulgate in a mas- 

i The edition of 1540 was Stephens’s principal edition of the Latin Vulgate* as his 
edition of 1550 was his principal edition of the Greek. In magnificence it surpasses 
eveiy edition of the Vulgate that ever was printed : and it is likewise of great value to a 
critic, as it contains a copious collection of readings from Latin manuscripts, and some of 
the early editions. Father Simon (Hist, Crit. des Versions du N. Test, ch, xi p 130 ) 
calls it "un chef -d^mreen fait de Bible ” and (p. 131.) he terms this edition “ ia neii 
Imre des toutes. Hentemus, in his preface to the Louvain edition, calls it tc accumtissima 
et castxgahsswia Btbha. (See also the praises bestowed on it in Masch’s edition of Le 

® V ? L ^ P * 1870 The title ~P a S e Prefixed to the New 

Testament bears the d^te of lo39 ; though that which is prefixed to the Old Testament is 
dated 1540. (Marshs Letters to Travis, p. 254. note.) It is by this latter date that 
Stephens s best edition of the Vulgate is usually known and cited. * 

II. Sect. IV.] 

Antient Latin Versions. 


terly manner \ and our learned countryman Thomas James, in his 
Bellum Papale , sive Concordia Discors Sixti V. (London, 1600, 4to.) 
who has pointed out very numerous additions, omissions, contradic- 
tions, and other differences between the Sixtine and Clementine edi- 
tions. l 2 From this very curious and now rare volume, the following 
specimens of the differences between these two editions are selected, 
and arranged. 

1. Clauses omitted in the Sixtine, but inserted in the Clementine Bible. 

Num. xxx. 11. Uxor in domo viri , <%c. to the end of the verse, 

Prov. xxv. 24. Melius est sedere in cingulo domatis , $c. 

Lev. xx. 9. Patri matrique maledixit. 

Jud. xvii. 2, 3. Reddidit ergo eos matri svcd, $c. 

1 Kings iv. 21. Quia capta est area Dei. 

3 Kings (same as our first] xii. 10. Sic loqueris ad eos. 

2 Chron. ii. 10. Et vini vigexiti millia metretas. 

Matt, xxvii. 25. Ut implerelur quod dictum est per propketam dicentem, diviserunt sibi 
vestimenla mea } et super vestem me am miserunt sortem. 

2. Clauses or words introduced into the Sixtine, but omitted in the 
Clementine Bible. 

1 Sam. xxiv. 8. Vivit dominus , quia nisi dominus perensserit eum, aut dies ejus venerit 

ut moriatur , aut descendens in preelium periret; jiropitius mihi sit 
dominus ut non miltam inanum meam in Christum Domini . 

1 Sam. xxv. 6. Exmultis annis saluosfaciens tuoset omnia tua. 

2 12. Dixit que David, ibo et reducam arcam. 

2 Sam. viii. 8. De quo fecit Salomo omnia vasa eerea in templo et mare ceneum et 

columnas et altare. 

2 Sam. xix. 10. Et concilium totius Israel venit ad regem . 

Prov. xxiv. ult. Usque quo piger dormis ? usque quo de somno consurges . 

Hab. i. 3. Quare resjneis contemp tores et taces conculcante impio justiorem se ? Et 
facies homines quasi pisces ?naris, et quasi reptilia non habentia ducem . 
Matt xxiv. 41. Duo in lecto, u?ius assumetur , et unus relinquetur. 

Acts xiv. 6. Et couimota est omnis multitudo in doctrina eorum, Paulus autem , <fyc. 
xxiv. 18, 19. Et upprehendcrunt me clamantes et dicentes , iolle inimicum nostrum. 

3. Manifest contradictions, or differences between the editions. 

Ex. xxiii. 18. Sixtine Tu* t Clementine meae. 

Numb, xxxiv, 4. S. Ad meridiem , C. A meridie . 

Deut. xvii. 8. S. Inter lepram et non lepram, C. Inter lepram et lepram. 

Jos. ii. 18. S. Signum non fuerit , C. Signum fuerit . 
iv. 23. S. Deo nostro, C. Vestro. 
xi. 1 9. S. Quce se non traderet, C. Quce sc traderet. 
xiv. 3. S. Tuo, C. Meo. 

1 Sam, iv. 9. S. Nobis , C. Vobis. 
xx. 9. S. A me, C. A te . 

1 Kings vii. 9. S. Intrinsecus, C. Extnnsecxis. 

Hab. l. 13. S. Quare non respicis, C. Respicis . 

Heb. v. 11. S- InterpretabiliSj C. Ininterpretabdis. 

2 Pet. i. 16. S. Indoctas, C. Docttis. 

4. Differences in numbers# 

Ex. xxiv. 5. S. Vitulos duodecem, C. Vitulos. 

xxxii. 28. S. Trigenta tria millia , C. Vigenti millia. 

2 Sam. xv. 7. S. Quatv or, C. Quadrigenta. 

1 Kings iv, 42. S. Quinque millia , C. Quinque et milk . 

2 ICings xiv. 17. S. Viginti Qumque, C. Quindecem . 

xxv. 19. S. Sex , , C. Sexagenta. 

2 Chron. xiii. 17# S. Quinquagenta, C, Quingenta. 

l Kortholt, de variis Scripturse Editiombus, pp. 110— 25U 

8 Additional instances of the contradictions between the above-mentioned papal editions, 
together with a defence of the Bellum Papale , may be seen in Mr. James’s “ Treatise of 
the Corruptions of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers, by the Prelates, Pastors, and Pillars of 
the Church of Rome, for the Maintenance of Popery,” pp.272—358. London, 1688. 8vo. 


Antient Western Versions of the Scriptures . [Part I. Ch. 

3 Sam. iii. 2, S. 

1 Kings ii. 28. 
2 Kings xv. 1 9. 
Judith i. 2. 

Job xxxi. 75. 

Fsa. xli. 3. 
Prov. xix. 23. 

xx r 25. 
Ezek. xiv. 22. 
Sirach xxxviii.25. 
xlii. 9. 
Isaiah xlvi. 12. 
Jer, xvii. 9. 

5. Other remarkable differences. 

S. Nec poterat videre lucernam Dei antequcim extingueretur. 

C. Nec poterat videre ; lucerna Dei antequam extingueretur. 

S. Ad Salomonevit C. Ad Jaob . 

S. In tkersam , C. In terrain . 

S. Fecit 3 ejus muros in altitudinem 70 cubitus : this is one of those places 
■where paper had been pasted on the text, the word first printed was 
latitudinem , and altitudinem was printed on a slip of paper, and put 
over it, C. Latitudinem . 

S. Latitudinem , 30 cu. C. Altitudinem , SO cubitus . 

S. Si secutus est oculus meus cor meum, C. Si secutum et oculos m eus 
cor meum . 

S. Ad Deumfontem vivum , C. Ad Deum fortem, vivum . 

S. Qui affiigit patrem etfugit matrem, C. Qui affligat, #c. etfugat, #c. 
S. Devorare sanctos , C. Devotare sanctos. 

S. Egredientur , C. Ingredientur. 

S. Sapientiam scribes, C. Sapientia scribes. 

S. Adullera , C. Adulta . 

S. Justum , C. Avem . 

S, Corliominis , C. Hominum . 1 

Besides the preceding revisions by papal authority, there have 
been several others executed by private individuals ; in which the 
Latin Vulgate has been so much corrected from the original He- 
brew and Greek, that they have in some degree been considered 
(though erroneously) as new translations. Of this number are the 
Latin Bibles published by Clarius, Eber, and the Osianders. 

[i.] Isidore Glarius’s edition of the Vulgate first appeared at 
Venice in 1542, and is of extreme rarity: it was reprinted at the 
same place in 1557 and 1564. He has not only restored the antient 
Latin text, but has also corrected it in a great number of places which 
he conceived to be erroneously translated, so as to make them con- 
formable to the Hebrew original. Although he corrected more than 
eight thousand places, as he states in his preface, yet he omitted some, 
lest he should offend the Roman Catholics by making too many 
alterations in the Vulgate version. 

[ii.] The method of Clarius was followed by Paul Ebee, who cor- 
rected the Vulgate from Luther’s German version. His edition was 
published at Wittemberg, in 1565, with the addition of Luther’s 
translation, under the authority of Augustus, Elector of Saxony; and 
was reprinted in 1574, in ten volumes, quarto. 

[iii.] The edition of Luke Osiander appeared in 1578,andhas since 
been very often reprinted ; as also has a German translation of it, 
which was first published at Stutgard in 1600. Andrew Osiander’s 
edition was also printed in 1600, and frequently since. They have 
both corrected the Vulgate, according to the Hebrew originals; and 
have occasioned some confusion to their readers, by inserting their 
emendations in a character different from that in which the Vulgate 
text is printed. 

4. The Vulgate is regarded by Papists and Protestants in very 
different points of view : by the former it has been extolled beyond 
measure, while by most of the latter it has been depreciated as much 
below its intrinsic merit. Our learned countryman, John Bois 
(canon of Ely), was the first who pointed out the real value of this 

1 Hamilton’s Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, pp. 163 — 166. 

II. Sect. IV.] 

The Gothic Version* 


version, in his Collatio Veteris Interpretis cum Bezd aliisque recent 
tiorihus (8vo. 1655). In this work, which is now of extreme rarity, 
the author has successfully shown that, in many places, the modern 
translators had unduly depreciated the Vulgate, and unnecessarily 
departed from it. Bois was followed by Father Simon, in his His - 
toire Critique du Teocte et des Versions du Nouveau Testament , who has 
proved that the more antient the Greek manuscripts and other 
versions are, the more closely do they agree with the Vulgate : and 
in consequence of the arguments adduced by Simon, the Vulgate 
has been more justly appreciated by biblical critics of later times. 

Although the Latin Vulgate is neither inspired nor infallible, as 
Morinus, Suarez, and other advocates of the Romish Church have 
-attempted to maintain, yet it is allowed to be in general a faithful 
translation, and sometimes exhibits the sense of Scripture with 
greater accuracy than the more modern versions : for all those which 
have been made in modern times, by divines in communion with the 
Church of Rome, are derived from the Latin Vulgate, which, in 
consequence of the decree of the Council of Trent above noticed, 
has been substituted for -the original Hebrew and Greek texts. The 
Latin Vulgate, therefore, is by no means to be neglected by the bib- 
lical critic: and since the Ante-Hieronymian Latin translations are 
unquestionably of great antiquity, both lead us to a discovery of the 
readings in very antient Greek manuscripts, which existed prior to 
the date of any now extant. Even in its present state, notwith- 
standing the variations between the Sixtine and Clementine editions, 
and that several passages are mistranslated, in order to support the 
peculiar dogmas of the Church of Rome, the Latin Vulgate pre- 
serves many true readings *, where the modern Hebrew copies are 
corrupted. * 

II. The Gothic Version of the Bible was made from the Greek, 
both in the Old and in the New Testament, by Ulphilas 1 * 3 , a cele- 
brated Bishop of the Mseso-Goths, who assisted at the council of 
Constantinople in 359, and was sent on an embassy to the emperor 
Valens about the year 378. He is said to have embraced Arianism, 
and to have propagated Arian tenets among his countrymen. Besides 
translating the entire Bible into the Gothic language, Ulphilas is said 
to have conferred on the Maeso-Goths the invention of the Gothic 
characters. The character, however, in which this version of the 

1 Cappell has given numerous examples in his Critiea Sacra, lib. ii. cc.vii. — lx. tom.ii. 
pp. 858—898. (edit. Scliarfenberg). 

£ The preceding account of the Latin versions has been compiled from Michael is, 
vol. ii. pp. 107 — 129. Semler, Apparatus ad Liberalem Vet. Test. Interpretationem, 
pp. 308 — 314. Carpzov. Critiea Sacra, pp. 6 71 — 706. Leusden, Philologus Hebrseo- 
xnixtus, pp. 1 — 10. Bishop Walton, Prol. c. xi. pp. 470 — 507. ; and Viser, Herroeneu- 
tica Sacra Novi Testamenti, vol. ii. partiii. pp.73 — 96. See also Muntinghe’s Expositio 
Critices Veteris Foederis, pp. 349 — 156.; and Hug’s Introduction, vol. i. pp. 464 — 483. 
For the principal editions of the Latin versions of the Scriptures, see the Appendix, 
pp. 44 — 46. 

3 « This,” says Bishop Marsh, fe is an original German name, and is a diminutive of the 
word Wolf: it is written in correct German, Wolfelein, but corruptly pronounced 
Wolfila or Wulfila, in the dialects of Switzerland, Bavaria, and Austria, to which that of 
the Mseso-Goths, who likewise inhabited the banks of the Danube, is nearly allied.” Mi- 
chaelis, vol. ii. partii. p. 631, 

76 Antient Western Versions of the Scriptures, [Part I. Cb. 

New Testament is written, is, in fact, the Latin character of that 
age; and the degree of perfection, which the Gothic language had 
obtained during the time of Ulphilas, is a proof that it had then 
been written for some time. 

The translation of Ulphilas (who had been educated among the 
Greeks) was executed from the Greek : but, from its coincidence in 
many instances with the Latin, there is reason to suspect that it has 
been interpolated, though at a remote period, from the Vulgate. Its 
unquestionable antiquity, however, and its general fidelity, have con- 
curred to give this version a high place in the estimation of biblical 
critics : but, unfortunately, it has not come down to us entire . The 
only parts extant in print are, a fragment of the book of Nehemiah, 
a considerable portion of the four Gospels, and some portions of 
the apostolic epistles. 1 

III. The Sclavonic, or Old Russian Version, was also made 
from the Greek, both in the Old and New Testaments. It is ascribed 
to the two brothers, Cyril 12 (or Constantine, surnamed the Philoso- 
pher on account of his learning,) and Methodius, sons of Leo a 
Greek nobleman of Thessalonica, who, in the latter part of the 
ninth century, first preached the Gospel among the Moravo-Sclavo- 
nians : but it is questionable, whether these missionaries translated 
the whole of the sacred code, or whether their labours comprised 
only the books of the New Testament and the Psalms of David. 
M. Dobrowsky (who has bestowed more pains on the critical study 
of the Sclavonic Scriptures than any person now living) is of opinion 
“ that, with the exception of the Psalms, no part of the Old Testa- 
ment was translated at so early a period. So much, however, is 
certain, that the book of Proverbs must have been translated before, 
or in the twelfth century, as the frequent quotations made from it 
by Nestor (author of the Russian Chronicle, who died in 1156,) 
agree, on the whole, with the common text. The books of Job, on 
the other hand, the Prophets, and the apocryphal books of Wis- 
dom and Ecclesiasticus, appear to have been done in Servia, in the 
thirteenth or fourteenth century ; and the Pentateuch and remaining 
books in the fifteenth, either in Russia or Poland, at which time the 
whole were collected into one volume, and arranged according to 
the order of the books in the Bohemian Bible, printed in 1488 
or 1489.” The extreme rarity and recent date of MSS. of the 
entire Sclavonic Bible greatly corroborated this hypothesis of 
M. Dobrowsky, respecting the late execution of this version of 
the Old Testament* 3 Dr. Henderson has shown, by actual col- 

1 Michaelis, vol. ii. parti, pp. 130 — 133. 149 — 152. Hug, vol. L pp.498 513. 

s To this Cyril is ascribed the invention of the Sclavonic letters : « But, it is manifest, 
this invention consisted in nothing more than the adaptation of the uncial characters of the 
Greek alphabet, so far as they went, to express the sounds cf the new language, with the ad- 
dition of certain other letters, borrowed or changed from other alphabets, to make up the 
deficiency. He also substituted Sclavonic for the Phenician names of the letters ; on 
which account the alphabet has been called the Cyrillic, after his name.*' Dr. Henderson's 

Biblical Researches and Travels in Russia, p.67. (London, 1826.) In pp. 6 0< 102. the 

learned traveller has given an extended and very interesting account of the Sclavonic lan- 
guage and sacred literature, from which the present notice of the Sclavonic version is 
abridged. 3 Ibid. pp. 73, 74. 

II. Sect. IV.] The Anglo-Saxon Version . 77 

lation, that the Sclavonic text of the Old Testament, in the editio 
princeps of the Bible printed at Ostrog in 1581, was made with the 
assistance of the Vulgate or some antient Latin MSS. found in the 
Bulgarian monasteries, or that it was at least revised and altered 
according to them: and he is of opinion that, if this edition were 
carefully collated, it w r ould yield a rich harvest of various readings, 
some of which might prove of essential service to a future editor of 
the Septuagint. 1 

According to Professor Hug, the Sclavonic version exhibits the 
text of the Constantinopolitan recension, M. Dobrowsky pro- 
nounces it to be a very literal translation from the Greek, the Greek 
construction being very frequently retained, even where it is con- 
trary to the genius of the Sclavonian language; and in general it 
resembles the most antient manuscripts, with which it agrees, even 
where their united evidence is against the common printed reading, 
cc It contains at least three fourths of the readings which Griesbach 
has adopted into his text” [in his critical edition of the New Tes- 
ment]. “ Where he has few authorities, the Sclavonic mostly cor- 
roborates the authority of the textus receptus : and, where a great 
agreement obtains among the antient MSS. in favour of a reading, 
it joins them against the common editions. It varies from Theo- 
phylact as often as it agrees with him, and has neither been altered 
from him nor the Vulgate:”' 2 and it possesses few or no lectiones 
singulares , or readings peculiar to itself. 3 From an edition of this 
version, printed at Moscow in 1614, M. Alter selected the readings 
of the Four Gospels, and from a manuscript in the imperial library, 
the readings of the Acts and Epistles, which are printed in his 
edition of the Greek New Testament. (Vienna, 1787, 2 vols. 8vo.) 
M. Dobrowsky states that these various lections are given with great 
accuracy, but that those which Matthai has selected from the Re- 
velation are erroneous and useless. Griesbach has given a catalogue 
of the Sclavonic manuscripts collated for his edition of the New 
Testament, communicated to him by Dobrowsky. 4 

IV. Anglo-Saxon Version. — Although Christianity was planted 
in Britain in the first century, it does not appear that the Britons 
had any translation of the Scriptures in their language earlier than 
the eighth century. About the year 706, Adhelm, the first bishop 
of Sherborn, translated the Psalter into Saxon : and at his earnest 
persuasion, Egbert or Eadfrid, bishop of Lindisfarne, or Holy Island, 
soon after executed a Saxon version of the Four Gospels. 5 Not 

J Dr. Henderson’s Biblical Researches and Travels in Russia, p. 88. 

- Ibid. pp. 89, 90. 

3 Dr. Henderson cprroborates this account of M. Dobrowsky, and states that this ver- 
sion (t may be considered as one of the most verbal ever executed. Not only is every 
word and particle scrupulously expressed, and made, in general, to occupy the same place 
in the translation that it does in the original, but the derivation and compounds, as well 
as the grammatical forms, are all successfully imitated.” (Ibid. pp. 91, 9‘i.j 

4 Michaelis, vol.ii. pp. 153 —158. fi36, 837. Griesbach, Prolegomena, vol.i. pp.cxxvii. 
— cxxxii. Beck, Monograminata Hermeneutices Novi Testament!, pp. 108, 109. Hug, 
vol. i. pp. 513 — 517. 

9 The manuscript of this translation is now deposited in the Cottonian Library in the 
British Museum (Nero, n. iv.) ; Mr. Astle has given a specimen of it in plate xiv. of his 
« Origin and Progress of Writing,” and has described it in pp. 100, 101. 

78 Antient Western Versions of the Scriptures . [Part I. Ch. 

many years after this, the learned and venerable Bede (who died 
a, n. 735) translated the entire Bible into that language. There 
were other Saxon versions, either of the whole or of detached por- 
tions of the Scriptures, of a later date. A translation of the book 
of Psalms was undertaken by the illustrious King Alfred, who died 
a. d. 900, when it was about ha]f finished : and Elfric, who was 
archbishop of Canterbury in 995, translated the Pentateuch, Joshua, 
Job, Judith, part of the book of Kings, Esther, and Maccabees. 
The entire Anglo-Saxon version of the Bible has never been printed : 
King Alfred’s translation of the Psalms, with the interlineary Latin 
text, was edited by John Spelman, 4to. London, 1640; and there 
is another Saxon interlineary translation of the Psalter, deposited in 
the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth. Of the Four Gospels, there 
have been three editions printed : an account of which will be found 
in the Appendix, pp. 48, 49. 

The Anglo-Saxon version being evidently translated from the Old 
"Latin, Michaelis is of opinion that it may be of use in determining 
the readings of that version ; and Semler has remarked, that it con- 
tains many readings which vary both from the Greek and Latin texts, 
of which he has given some examples. Dr. Mill selected various 
lections from this version ; which, from the difference of style and 
inequalities observable in its execution, he ascribes to several au- 
thors : it is supposed to have been executed in the eighth centui'y. 1 
On the application of antient versions to the ascertaining of various 
readings, see Part I. Chap. V. of this volume ; and on the benefit 
which may be derived from them in the interpretation of the Scrip- 
tures, see Part II. Book I. Chap. II. Sect. I. § 2. 

i Johnson’s Hist. Account of English Translations of the Bible, in Bishop Watson’s 
Collection of Theological Tracts, vol. iii. pp. 61 — 63. Bp. Marsh’s Michaelis, vol. ii. 
pp. 158. 637. Kortholt, pp. 351— 553. Semler, Apparatus ad Lib, Novi Test. Intern, 
pp. 72, 73. 

III. Sect, L] 

On the Manuscripts of the Bible. 






I. Different classes of Hebrew Manuscripts . — II. The Rolled Manuscripts 
of the Synagogues . — III. The Square Manuscripts used by the Jews 
in private life . — IV. Antient Recensions or Editions of Hebrew Manila 
scripts . — V. Age of Hebrew Manuscripts . — VI. Of the order in which 
the Sacred Books are arranged in Manuscripts. — Number of Books 
contained in different Manuscripts . — VII. Modern Families or Recen- 
sions of Hebrew Manuscripts . — VIII. Notice of the most antient Manu- 
scripts. — IX. Brief notice of the Manuscripts of the Indian Jews . 

Although, as we have already seen, the Hebrew text of the 
Old Testament has descended to our times uncorrupted, yet, with 
all the care which the antient copyists could bestow, it was impossibe 
to preserve it free from mistakes, arising from the interchanging of 
the similar letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and other circumstances 
incident to the transcription of antient manuscripts. The Rabbins 
boldly asserted, and, through a credulity rarely to be paralleled, it 
was implicitly believed, that the Hebrew text was absolutely free 
from error, and that in all the manuscripts of the Old Testament 
not a single various reading of importance could be produced. Far- 
ther Morin was the first person who ventured to impugn this notion 
in his Exercitationes in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum^ pub- 
lished at Paris in 1631 ; and he grounded his opinion of the incor- 
rectness of the Hebrew manuscripts on the differences between the 
Hebrew and the Samaritan texts in the Pentateuch, and on the dif- 
ferences between the Hebrew and the Septuagint in other parts of 
the Bible. Morinus was soon after followed by Louis Cappel, 
(whose Critica Sacra was published in 1650,) who pointed out a 
great number of errors in the printed Hebrew, and showed how 
they might be corrected by the antient versions and the common 


[Parti. Ch. 

On the Hebrew Manuscripts 

rules of criticism. He did not, however, advert to the most obvious 
and effectual means of emendation, namely, a collation of Hebrew 
manuscripts ; and, valuable as his labours unquestionably are, it is 
certain that he neither used them himself, nor invited others to have 
recourse to them, in order to correct the sacred text. Cappel was 
assailed by various opponents, but chiefly by the younger Buxtorf 
in his Anticritica , published at Basil in 1653, who attempted, but 
in vain, to refute the principles he had established. In 1657 Bishop 
Walton, in his Prolegomena to the London Polyglott Bible, declared 
in favour of the principles asserted by Cappel, acknowledged the ne- 
cessity of forming a critical apparatus for the purpose of obtaining, 
a more correct text of the Hebrew Bible, and materially contributed 
to the formation of one by his own exertions. Subsequent biblical 
critics acceded to the propriety of their arguments, and since the mid- 
dle of the seventeenth century, the importance and necessity of col- 
lating Hebrew manuscripts have been generally acknowledged. 1 

I. Hebrew manuscripts are divided into two Classes, viz. auto - 
graphs , or those written by the inspired penmen themselves, which 
have long since perished ; and apogt'aphs , or copies made from the 
originals, and multiplied by repeated transcription. These apo- 
graphs are also divided into the more antient , w T hich formerly enjoyed 
the highest authority among the Jews, but have in like manner 
perished long ago ; and into the more modern , which are found dis- 
persed in various public and private libraries. The manuscripts 
which are still extant, are subdivided into the rolled manuscripts 
used in the synagogues, and into the square manuscripts which are 
used by private individuals among the Jews. 

II. The Pentateuch was read in the Jewish synagogues from the 
earliest times; and, though the public reading of it was intermitted 
during the Babylonish captivity, it was resumed shortly after the 
return of the Jews. Hence numerous copies were made from time 
to time; and as they held the books of Moses in the most ' supersti- 
tious veneration, various regulations were made for the guidance of 
the transcribers, who were obliged to conform to them in copying 
the Rolls destined for the use of the synagogue. The date of these 
regulations is not known, but they are long posterior to the Talmud ; 
and though many of them are the most ridiculous and useless that 
can be well conceived, yet the religious observance of them, which 
has continued for many centuries, has certainly contributed in a great 
degree to preserve the purity of the Pentateuch. The following are 
a few of the principal of these regulations. 

The copies of the law must be transcribed from antient manu- 
scripts of approved character only, with pure ink, on parchment pre- 
pared from the hide of a clean animal, for this express purpose, by 
a Jew, and fastened together by the strings of clean animals; every, 
skin must contain a certain number of columns of prescribed length 
and breadth, each column comprising a given number of lines and 
words; no word must be written by heart or with points, or without 

1 Bishop Marsh’s Lectures, part ii. p. 99. 

III. Sect, I.] 


Of the Old Testament . 

being first orally pronounced by the copyist ; the name of God is 
not to be written but with the utmost devotion and attention, and 
previously to writing it, he must wash his pen. The want of a single 
letter, or the redundance of a single letter, the writing of prose as 
verse, or verse as prose, respectively vitiates a manuscript ,* and when 
a copy has been completed, it must be examined and corrected within 
thirty days after the writing has been finished, in order to determine 
whether it is to be approved or rejected. These rules, it is said, are 
observed to the present day by the persons who transcribe the sa- 
cred writings for the use of the synagogue. 1 The form of one of 
these rolled manuscripts (from the original among the Harleian MSS. 
in the British Museum, No. 7619.) is given in the vignette at the 
head of this section. It is a large double roll, containing the Hebrew 
Pentateuch ,• written with very great care on forty brown African 
skins. These skins are of different breadths, some containing more 
columns than others. The columns are one hundred and fifty-three 
in number, each of which contains about sixty-three lines, is about 
twenty-two inches deep, and generally more than five inches broad. 
The letters have no points, apices, or flourishes about them. The 
initial words are not larger than the rest ; and a space, equal to about 
four lines, is left between every two books. Altogether, this is one 
of the finest specimens of the synagogue-rolls that has been preserved 
to the present time. 

III. The Square Manuscripts, which are in private use, arewritten 
with black ink, either on vellum or on parchment, or on paper, and 
of various sizes, folio, quarto, octavo, and duodecimo. Those which 
are copied on paper are considered as being the most modem ; and 
they frequently have some one of the Targums or Chaldee Para- 
phrases, either subjoined to the text in alternate verses, or placed in 
parallel columns with the text, or written in the margin of the manu- 
script. The characters are, for the most part, those which are called 
the square Chaldee ; though a few manuscripts are written with rab- 
binical characters, but these are invariably of recent date. Biblical 
critics, who are conversant with the Hebrew manuscripts, have dis- 
tinguished three sorts of characters, each differing in the beauty of 
their form. The Spanish character is perfectly square, simple, and 
elegant : the types of the quarto Hebrew Bibles, printed by Robert 
Stephen and by Plantin, approach the nearest to this character. The 
German , on the contrary, is crooked, intricate, and inelegant, in every 
respect ; and the Italian character holds a middle place between these 
two. The pages are usually divided into three columns of various 
lengths ; and the initial letters of the manuscripts are frequently il- 
luminated and ornamented with gold. In many manuscripts the' 
Masora 2 is added ; what is called the larger Masora being placed 
above and below the columns of the text, and the smaller Masora 
bqing inserted in the blank spaces between the columns. 

IV. In the period between the sixth and the tenth centuries, the 
Jews had two celebrated academies, one at Babylon in the east, and 

1 Carpzov. Critica Sacra Vet. Test. pp. 37 1, 372, 

9 See an account of the Masora in Chap, IV. Sect I. § IV. infra . 

VOL. IX* Gt . 

82 On the Hebrew Manuscripts [Part I. Ch. 

another at Tiberias in the west; where their literature was cultivated, 
and the Scriptures were very frequently transcribed. Hence arose 
two Recensions or editions of the Hebrew Scriptures, which were 
collated in the eighth or ninth century. The differences or various 
readings observed in them were noted, and have been transmitted 
to our time under the appellation of the oriental and occidental or 
eastern and western readings. They are variously computed at 210, 
216, and 220, and are printed by Bishop Walton in the Appendix 
to his splendid edition of the Polyglott Bible. In the early part of 
the eleventh century, Aaron ben Asher, president of the academy 
at Tiberias, and Jacob ben Naphtali, president of the academy at Ba- 
bylon, collated the manuscripts of the oriental and occidental Jews, 
The discrepancies observed by these eminent Jewish scholars amount 
to upwards of 864; with one single exception, they relate to the 
vowel points, and, consequently, are of little value; they are also 
printed by Bishop Walton. The western Jews, and our printed 
editions of the Hebrew Scriptures, almost wholly follow the recen- 
sion of Aaron ben Asher. 

Among the Jews five exemplars have been particularly celebrated 
for their singular correctness, and from them all their subsequent 
copies have been made. These standard copies bear the names of 
the Codex of Hillel, of Ben Asher, which is also called the Palestine 
or Jerusalem Codex, of Ben Naphtali, or the Babylonian Codex, the 
Pentateuch of Jericho, and the Codex Sinai. 

1. The Codex of Hillel was a celebrated manuscript which Rabbi 
Kimchi (who lived in the twelfth century) says that he saw at Toledo, 
though Rabbi Zacuti, who flourished towards the close of the fif- 
teenth century, states that part of it had been sold and sent into 
Africa. Who this Hillel was, the learned are by no means agreed ; 
some have supposed that he was the very eminent Rabbi Hillel who 
lived about sixty years before the birth of Christ ; others imagine 
that he was the grandson of the illustrious Rabbi Jehudah Hakka- J 
dosh, who wrote the Misna, and that he flourished about the middle 
of the fourth century. Others, again, suppose that he was a Spanish 
Jew, named Hillel; but Bauer, with greater probability, supposes 
the manuscript to have been of more recent date, and written in 
Spain, because it contains the vowel points, and all the other gram- 
matical minutiae ; and that the feigned name of Hillel was inscribed 
on its title in order to enhance its value. 

2, 3. The Codices of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali have already 
been noticed. We may, however, state, on the authority of Mai- 
monides, that the first of these was held in most repute in Egypt, as 
having been revised and corrected in very many places by Ben Asher 
himselfi and that it was the exemplar which he (Maimonides) followed 
in copying the law, in conformity with the custom of the Jews. 

4. The Codex of Jericho is highly commended by Rabbi Elias 
'Levita, as being the most correct copy of the Law of Moses, and 
exhibiting the defective and full words. 

5. The Codex Sinai was also a very correct manuscript of the 
Pentateuch* that presented some variation in the accents, in which 
respect it differed from the former, A sixth Codex, called SanbouM , 


III. Sect. I.] Of the Old Testament . 

is mentioned by Pere Simon, as having been seen by him ; but no- 
thing certain is known respecting its date, or by whom it was written. 

V. As the authority of manuscripts depends greatly on their an- 
tiquity, it becomes a point of considerable importance to ascertain 
their Age as exactly as possible. Now this may be effected either 
by cxte?'nal testimony or by interiutl marks. 

1. External testimony is sometimes afforded by the subscriptions 
annexed by the transcribers, specifying the time when they copied 
the manuscripts. But this criterion cannot always be depended 
upon : for instances have occurred, in which modern copyists have 
added antient and false dates in order to enhance the value of their 
labours. As, however, by far the greater number of manuscripts 
have no subscriptions or other criteria by which to ascertain their 
date, it becomes necessary to resort to the evidence of 

2. Internal Marks . Of these, the following are stated by Dr. 
Kennicott and M. De Rossi to be the principal: 1. The inelegance 
or rudeness of the character (Jablonski lays down the simplicity and 
elega?ice of the character as a criterion of antiquity) ; — 2. The yel- 
low colour of the vellum ; — 3. The total absence, or at least the 
very rare occurrence, of the Masora, and of the Keri and Ketib 1 ; 

— 4. The writing of the Pentateuch throughout in one book, without 
any greater mark of distinction appearing at the beginning of books 
than at the beginning of sections ; — 5. The absence of critical 
emendations and corrections ; — 6. The absence of the vowel points ; 

— 7- Obliterated letters, being written and re-written with ink ; — 
8. The frequent occurrence of the name Jehovah in lieu of Adonai; 

— 9. The infrequency of capital and little letters; — 10. The inser- 
tion of points to fill up blank spaces; — 11. The non-division of 
some books and psalms ; — 12. The poetical books not being distin- 
guished from those in prose by dividing them into hemistichs ; — 
13. Readings frequently differing from the Masoretic copies, but 
agreeing with the Samaritan text, vrith antient versions, and with the 
quotations of the fathers. The conjunction of all, or of several, of 
these internal marks, is said to afford certain criteria of the antiquity 
of Hebrew manuscripts. But the opinions of the eminent critics 
above named have been questioned by Professors Bauer and Tychsen, 
who have advanced strong reasons to prove that they are uncertain 
guides in determining the age of manuscripts. The most antient 
Hebrew manuscripts are all written without any divisions of words, 
as is evident not only from antient Hebrew coins and Palmyrene 
inscriptions, but also from various passages in the most antient trans- 
lations, the authors of which frequently adopted a division of words, 
altogether different from that of the Masorites. This circumstance 
is also corroborated by the rabbinical tradition, that the law was for- 
merly one verse and one word. It is impossible to determine the 
time, when the Hebrews began to divide words in manuscripts : we 
only know from the researches of Dr. Kennicott and other eminent 
Hebrew critics, that all the antient interpreters used manuscripts 
written in one continued series ; that MSS. of more recent date (the 

1 For an account of these, see Chap, IV. Sect. I. § IV* infra* 
G 2 

$4? On the Helve® Manuscripts [Part I. Ch. 

thirteenth century) are still extant in which the same mode of writ- 
ing appears, — for instance, the MSS. numbered 290. and 293. by 
Dr. Kennicott ; and that some vestiges of the division of words are 
to be found in the Talmudical writings, and in Jerome. 1 

VI. A twofold Order of Arrangement of the sacred books is ob- 
servable in Hebrew manuscripts, viz. the Tahnudical &ndihe Masoretic. 
Originally,' the different books of the Old Testament were not joined 
together: according to Rabbi Elias Levita (the most learned Jewish 
writer on the subject), they were first joined together by the mem- 
bers of the great synagogue, who divided them into three parts, — 
the law, the prophets, and hagiographa, and who placed the prophets 
and hagiographa in a different order from that assigned by the Tal- 
mudists in the book intitled Baba Bathra . 

The following is the Talmudical arrangement of the Old Testa- 
ment : — Of the Prophets , Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings (1 and 2), 
Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets (in one 
book). Of the Hagiographa , Ruth, Psalms, Job, Ecclesiastes, Song 
of Solomon, Lamentations, Esther, Chronicles. By the Masorites, 
the Prophets are placed in the same order, with the exception of 
Isaiah, who precedes Jeremiah and Ezekiel, because he flourished 
before them. This arrangement is adopted in the manuscripts of 
the Spanish Jews, while the Talmudical order is preserved in those 
of the German and French Jews. In the Hagiographa the Maso- 
rites have departed from the arrangement of the Talmudists, and 
place the books comprised in that division thus : — Psalms, Job, 
Proverbs, Ruth, the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations 
of Jeremiah, Esther, Daniel, and Ezra. This mode of arrangement 
obtains in the Spanish manuscripts. But in the German MSS. 
they are thus disposed : Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the Five Megilloth 
(or books), Daniel, Ezra, and Chronicles ; and the Five Megilloth 
(or books) are placed in the order in which they are usually read in 
their synagogues, viz. the Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations of 
Jeremiah, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. 

There are, however, several manuscripts extant, which depart both 
from the Talmudical and from the Masoretical order, and have an 
arrangement peculiar to themselves. Thus, in the Codex Norim- 
bergensis 1. (No. 198. of Dr. Kennicott’s catalogue), which was writ- 
ten a. d. 1291, the books are thus placed : the Pentateuch, Joshua, 
Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve Mi- 
nor Prophets, Ruth, Esther, Psalms, Job, Ecclesiastes, Song of So- 
lomon, Lamentations, Proverbs, Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah (in 
one book), and Chronicles. In the Codex, No. 94?., written a. d. 
1285 (in the university library, at Cambridge), and also in No. 102., 
a manuscript in the British Museum, written early in the fourteenth 
century, the books of Chronicles precede the Psalms ; Job is placed 
before the Proverbs ; Ruth before the Song of Solomon ; and Eccle- 
siastes before the Lamentations. In the Codex, No. 130., a ma- 
nuscript of the same date (in the library of the Royal Society of 
London), Chronicles and Ruth precede the Psalms; and in the 

1 Muntinglioe, Expositio Crit, Vet. Feed, pp, 40, 41. 

III. Sect. L] 

Of the Old Testament . 8# 

Codex, No. 96., (in the library of St. John’s College, Cambridge,) 
written towards the close of the fourteenth century, and also in many 
other MSS., Jeremiah takes precedence of Isaiah. In the Codex 
Regiomontanus 2. (No. 224-.), written early in the twelfth century, 
Jeremiah is placed before Ezekiel, whose book is followed by that of 
Isaiah : then succeed the Twelve Minor Prophets. The Hagiogra- 
pha are thus disposed : — Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, 
Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra and Nehe- 
miah (in one book), and the books of Chronicles (also in one book). 
The order pursued in the Codex Ebnerianus 2. is altogether dif- 
ferent from the preceding, Samuel follows Jeremiah, who is suc- 
ceeded by the two books of Kings, and by part of the prophecy of 
Ezekiel : then comes part of Isaiah. The Twelve Minor Prophets 
are written in one continued discourse ; and are followed by Ruth, 
Psalms, Job, Proverbs with Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon, 
Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. 

Of the various Hebrew manuscripts which have been preserved, 
few contain the Old Testament entire : the greater part comprise 
only particular portions of it, as the Pentateuch, five Megilloth, and 
Haphtaroth, or sections of the prophets which are read on the sab- 
bath-days ; the Prophets or the Hagiographa. Some, indeed, are 
confined to single books, as the Psalms, the book of Esther, the Song 
of Solomon, and the Haphtaroth. This diversity in the contents of 
manuscripts is occasioned, partly by the design of the copyist, who 
transcribed the whole or part of the sacred writings for particular pur- 
poses ; and partly by the mutilations caused by the consuming hand 
of time. Several instances of such mutilations are given in the account 
of the principal Hebrew MSS. now extant, in pp. 87 — 89. infra. 

VII. As the Hebrew manuscripts which have been in use since 
the eleventh century have all been corrected according to some par- 
ticular recension or edition, they have from this circumstance been 
classed into Families, according to the country where such recension 
has obtained. These families or recensions are three or four in 
number, viz. 

1. The Spanish Manuscripts , which were corrected after the Codex 
of Hillel. They follow the Masoretic system with great accuracy, 
and are on this account highly valued by the Jews, though some He- 
brew critics hold them in little estimation. The characters are writ- 
ten with great elegance, and are perfectly square : the ink is pale ; 
the pages are seldom divided into three columns ; the Psalms are 
divided into hemistiehs; and the Chaldee paraphrases are not inter- 
lined, but written in separate columns, or are inserted in the margin 
in smaller letters. Professor Tychsen speaks in high terms of the 
caligraphy of the Spanish manuscripts. As the Spanish monks ex- 
celled in that art, he thinks the Jews, who abounded in Spain in the 
twelfth and thirteenth centuries, acquired it from them, and he ap- 
peals to manuscripts which he had seen, where the letters are through- 
out so equal, that the whole has the appearance oi print. 1 

1 Tychsen, Tentamen de variis Cod. Heb. MSS. pp. 302 — SOS* 

<Gr 3 


On the Heh'evo Manuscripts [Part I. Ch r 

2. The Oriental Manuscripts are nearly the same as the Spanish 
manuscripts, and may be referred to the same class. 

3. The German Manuscripts are written with less elegance than 
the Spanish codices: their characters are more rudely formed; the 
initial letters are generally larger than the rest, and ornamented ; 
the ink is very black. They do not follow the Masoretic notation, 
and frequently vary from the Masoretic manuscripts, exhibiting im- 
portant readings that are not to be found in the Spanish manuscripts, 
but which agree with the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch, and with 
the antient versions. The Chaldee paraphrases are inserted in al- 
ternate verses. This class of manuscripts is little esteemed by the 
Jews, but most highly valued by biblical critics. 

4. The Italian Manuscripts hold a middle place between the 
Spanish and German codices, and sometimes have a nearer affinity 
to one class than to the other, both in the shape of the Hebrew 
characters, and also as it respects their adherence to or neglect of 
the Masoretic system. M. Bruns, the able assistant of Dr. Kenni- 
cott in collating Hebrew manuscripts, has given engraved specimens 
of the Spanish, German, and Italian manuscripts, in his edition of 
Dr. K/s Dissertatio Generalis (8vo. Brunswick, 1783); and Professor 
Tychsen has given fourteen Hebrew alphabets, of various ages and 
countries, at the end of his Tentamen de variis Codicum Hebraeo- 
rum Vet. Test. MSS. Generibus. Antient and unpointed Hebrew 
manuscripts, written for the use of the synagogues, and those Maso- 
retic Spanish exemplars, which have been transcribed by a learned 
person, and for a learned person, from some famous and correct 
copy, are preferred by M. De Rossi to the copies written for pri- 
vate use, or even for the synagogue, from Masoretic exemplars, of 
which last the number is very great. But M. Bauer pronounces 
those manuscripts to be the best, whose various lections are most fre- 
quently confirmed by the antient versions, especially by the Alexan- 
drian and Syriac, and also by the Samaritan Pentateuch and version. 1 

VIII. M. De Rossi has divided Hebrew manuscripts into three 
classes, viz. 1 . More antient , or those written before the twelfth cen- 
tury ; — 2. Antient , or those written in the thirteenth and fourteenth 
centuries ; — 3. More recent , or those written at the end of the four- 
teenth, or at the beginning of the fifteenth century. The most re- 
cent, or those written since the fifteenth century, which are very 
numerous, and are those found in the synagogues, he pronounces to 
be of little or no use, unless it can be proved that they have been 
transcribed from antient apographs. The total number of Hebrew 
manuscripts collated by Dr. Kennicott for his critical edition of the 
Hebrew Bible is about six hundred and thirty. The total number 
collated by M. De Rossi for his Collection of Various Readings, 
is four hundred and seventy-nine manuscripts, besides two hundred 

* Vafoon* Prolegom. c. iv. § 1 — 12. pp. 171—184. cc. vii. viii. pp. 225—331. edit 
Datftii. Carpzov. Cntica Sacra, pp. 283—387. Dr. Kennicott, diss. i. pp. 313 — 317 
dso his Dissertatio Generalis, passim. Jahn, Introd. ad Yet. Fcedus, pp 153-1] 70 * 
Bauer, Critics Sacra, pp. 215-226. 343-407. De Rossi. Var. Lect. tom. i. Prole- 
gom. § xi.— xix. pp. jj.— . y.ra. 

III. Sect. I.] Of the Old Testament . &f 

and eighty-eight printed editions. The following are the most 
antient manuscripts collated by Dr. Kennicott. 

1. The Codex Laudianus, a. 172 and 162, and numbered 1. in Dr. 
Kennicott’s list of Hebrew manuscripts. Though now in two folio parts, 
it is evident that they originally formed only one volume : each part con- 
sists of quinquernions, or gatherings of five sheets or ten leaves, and at 
the bottom of every tenth leaf is a catch-word beginning the next leaf, 
which is the first of the succeeding gathering of ten leaves. But at 
the end of the first part or volume, there is pasted on, one leaf of the 
next quinquernion, completing the book of Deuteronomy ; so that this 
volume concludes with five sheets and one leaf over. And the first ga- 
thering in the second volume consists of only four sheets and one leaf, 
which last is likewise pasted on, for want of its fellow-leaf. This manu- 
script is written on vellum, according to Dr. Kennicott, in the Spanish 
character, but in the opinion of Dr, Bruns it is in the Italic character, to 
which M. De Rossi assents. The letters, which are moderately large, 
are plain, simple, and elegant, but universally unadorned; and they were 
originally written without points, as is evident from the different colour 
of the ink in the letters and in the points. Some of the letters, having 
become obliterated by the lapse of ages, have been written over a second 
time ; and though such places were re-written in the same strong cha- 
racter, yet many of the words were becoming a second time invisible, 
when collated by Dr. K. This eminent critic assigns it to the tenth cen- 
tury, but De Rossi refers it to the eleventh. The Laudian manuscript 
begins with Gen. xxvii. 31. : it contains fourteen thousand variations from 
Vander Hooght’s edition of the Hebrew Bible. More than two thousand 
are found in the Pentateuch, which confirm the Septuagint Greek ver- 
sion in one hundred and nine various readings ; the Syriac, in ninety- 
eight ; the Arabic, in eighty-two ; the Vulgate or Latin Version, in eighty- 
eight ; and the Chaldee Paraphrase, in forty-two : it also agrees with the 
Samaritan Pentateuch against the printed Hebrew, in seven hundred in- 
stances. What renders this manuscript the more valuable is, that it pre- 
serves a word of great importance for understanding 2 Sam. xxiii, 3 — 7-> 
which word is confirmed by the Greek version, and thus recovers to us 
a prophecy of the Messiah. 1 

2. The Codex Carlsrui-iensis 1. (No. 1 54. of Dr. Kennicott’s list of 
manuscripts,) formerly belonged to the celebrated and learned Reuchlin, 
whose efforts contributed so much towards the revival of literature in the 
fifteenth century. This manuscript is now preserved in the public library 
at Carlsruhe, and is the oldest that has a certain date. It is in square 
folio, and was written in the year of the world 4866, corresponding with 
1106 of our sera. It contains the Prophets with the Targurn. 

3. The Codex Vienna (No. 590. of Kennicott) contains the Prophets 
and Hagiographa. It is written on vellum in folio, and if the date in its 
subscription be correct (a.d. 1018 or 1019), it is more antient than the 
preceding, Bruns collected two hundred important various readings from 
this manuscript. The points have been added by a later hand. Accord- 
ing to Adler’s enumeration, it consists of four hundred and seventy-one 
leaves, and two columns, each column containing twenty-one lines. 

1 Kennicott, Dissert. I. pp. 315 — 319- Dissert. II. pp. 533, 534. Biblia Hcbraica, 
tom. ii. Dissert. Beneralis, pp. 70, 71. De Rossi, Varise Lectionos, tom. i. Proleg. 



On the Hebrew Manuscripts [Part I. Ch. 

4. The Codex Cjesen^:, in the Malatesta Library at Bologna (No. 536. • 
of Kennicott), is a folio manuscript written on vellum, in the German 
character, towards the end of the eleventh century. It contains the Pen- 
tateuch, the Haphtaroth or sections of the Prophetical Books, and the 
Megilloth or five Books of Canticles, or the Song of Solomon, Ruth, the 
Lamentations of Jeremiah, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. De Rossi pronounces 
it to be a most antient and valuable manuscript, and states that in its mar- 
gin are inserted some various readings of still more antient manuscripts. 1 

5. The Codex Fdorentinus 2. (No. 162. of Kennicott) is written on 
vellum, in quarto, in a square Spanish character, with points, towards the 
end of the eleventh, or at the latest, in the beginning of the twelfth cen- 
tury, It contains the books of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel. Very many 
of the letters, which were obliterated by time, have been renewed by a 
later hand. 

6. The Codex Mediolanensis, 9. (193. of Kennicott) is written on 
vellum, in, octavo, in the German character, towards the close of the 
twelfth century. It has neither the points nor the Masora. This manu- 
script comprises the Pentateuch ; the beginning of the book of Genesis, and 
the end of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, have been written by a later hand. 
Both erasures and alterations occur in this manuscript, and sometimes a 
worse reading is substituted in place of one that is preferable. Never- 
theless it contains many good various readings. 

7. The Codex Norimbergensis 4. (201 . of Kennicott) is a folio manu- 
script, written on thin vellum, in the German character, and containing 
the Prophets and Hagiographa. If is mutilated in various parts. It is of 
great antiquity, and from the similarity of its character to that of the Codex 
Carlsruhensis, both Dr. Kennicott and M. De Rossi assign it to the be- 
ginning of the twelfth century. 

8. The Codex Parisiensis 27. (Regius 29. 210. of Kennicott) is a 
quarto manuscript of the entire Bible, written on vellum, in an elegant 
Italic character. The initial words are, with few exceptions, of the same 
size as the rest. The Masora and Keri are both wanting; and the Megilloth 
precede the books of Chronicles. It is highly valued by Kennicott and 
De Rossi, who refer it also to the beginning of the twelfth century. 

9. Coeval with the preceding is the Codex Regiomontanus 2.(224. 
of Kennicott,) written in the Italic character, in small folio. This manuscript 
contains the Prophets and the Hagiographa, but it is mutilated in various 
places. The initial letters are larger than the others, and three of the 
poetical books are writtep in hemistichs. 

10. To the beginning of the twelfth century likewise is to be referred 
the Codex Parisiensis 24. (San-Germanensis 2. No. 366. of Kennicott): 
it is written on vellum, in large quarto. It is imperfect from Jer. xxix.19. 
to xxxviii. 2. ; and from Hosea iv. 4. to Amos vi. 12. Isaiah follows Ezekiel 
according to the Talmudical Canon. 3 

The following are among the most antient of the manuscripts in 
the possession of the late M. De Rossi, and collated by him, viz. 

1. The Codex, by him numbered 634., which is in quarto. It contains 
a fragment of the books of Leviticus and Numbers, — from Levit. xxi. 19- 
to Numb. i. 50- ; and exhibits every mark of the remotest antiquity. The 
vellum on which it is written is decayed by age ; the character is inter- 
mediate, or Italic, — approaching to that of the German manuscripts. 
The letters are all of an uniform size ; there is no trace of the Masora, or 

T t)e Rossi, tom. i. Proleg. p. lxxxvxi. 

2 Kennicott, Dissertatio Generalis, pp, 85. 87, 88, 89. 98. 104. 

III. Sect. I.] 


Of the Old Testament . 

of any Masoretic notes, nor is any space left before the larger sections ; 
though sometimes, as in other very antient manuscripts, a few points are 
inserted between the words. M. De Rossi assigns this manuscript to the 
eighth century. 

2. A manuscript of the Pentateuch (No. 503.), in quarto, and on vellum, 
containing from Gen. xii. 41. to Deut. xv. 12. It is composed of leaves 
of various ages, the most antient of which are of the ninth or tenth cen- 
tury. The character is semi-rabbinical, rude, and confessedly very antient. 
Points occur, in some of the more antient leaves, in the writing of the ori- 
ginal copyist, but sometimes they are wanting. There are no traces of 
the Masora or of the Masoretic notes, and sometimes no space at all before 
the larger sections. It frequently agrees with the Samaritan text and 
antient versions. 

3. A manuscript of the Pentateuch (No. 10.), with the Targum and 
Megilloth, It is written in the German character, on vellum, and in 
quarto, towards the end of the eleventh or in the beginning of the twelfth 
century. The Masora is absent. The character, which is defaced by 
time, is rudely formed, and the initial letters are larger than the rest. 
Coeval with this manuscript is, 

4. A manuscript of the book of Job, in quarto, also on vellum, and in 
the German character. It is one of the most valuable manuscripts of that 
book. The pages are divided into two Golumns, the lines being of un- 
equal length. 

5- A manuscript of the Hagiographa (No. 379.), the size, character, and 
date of which correspond with the preceding. It begins with Psal,xlix.l5. 
and ends with Neh. xl. 4. The Masora and Ken are absent ; and the 
poetical books are divided into hemistichs. 

6. A manuscript of the Pentateuch (No. 611.), on yellum, in octavo, 
and written in the German character, approaching somewhat to the 
Spanish, towards the close of the eleventh, or in the commencement of 
the twelfth century. The ink is frequently faded by age ; there are no 
traces of the Masora; the Keri are very rarely to be seen, and the initial 
letters are larger than the others. There are frequent omissions in the 
text, which are supplied in the margin. 1 

Dr. Kennicott states that almost all the Hebrew manuscripts of 
the Old Testament, at present known to be extant, were written 
between the years 1000 and 1457, whence he infers that all the ma- 
nuscripts written before the years 700 or 800 were destroyed by some 
decree of the Jewish senate, on account of their many differences 
from the copies then declared genuine. This circumstance is also 
alleged by Bishop Walton, as the reason why we have so few exem- 
plars of the age of 600 years, and why even the copies of 700 or 800 
years are very rare. 

IX. ft was long a desideratum with biblical scholars to obtain the 
Hebrew Scriptures from the Jews who are settled in India and other 
parts of the East. It was reasonably supposed, that, as these Jews 
had been for so many ages separated from their brethren in the west, 
their manuscripts might contain a text derived from the autographs 
of the sacred writers, by a channel independent of that through which 
the text of our printed Bibles has been transmitted to us. Dr. Kenni- 
cott was very anxious to obtain a copy, or at least a collation of a ma- 

1 De Rossi, Vai\ Lcct, tom, i. Proleg. pp, cxrx, exxx . xcviii. cvxx. cvxxx . 


On the Hebrew Manuscripts [Part I. Ch. 

nuscript from India or China, for his edition of the Hebrew Bible, in 
the expectation that it would exhibit important variations from the 
Masoretic editions ; but he was unsuccessful in his endeavours to 
procure it 1 9 and the honour of first bringing an Indian manuscript of 
the Hebrew Scriptures into Europe was reserved for the late Rev. 
Dr. Buchanan. 

Among the biblical manuscripts brought from India by this learned 
and pious divine, and which are now deposited in the public library 
at Cambridge, there is a roll of the Pentateuch, which he procured 
from the black Jews in Malabar 2 , who (there is strong reason to be- 
lieve) are a part of the remains of the first dispersion of that nation by 
Nebuchadnezzar. The date of this manuscript cannot now be ascer- 
tained ; but its text is supposed to be derived from those copies which 
their ancestors brought with them into India. Those Jews, on being 
interrogated, could give no precise account of it : some replied, that 
it came originally from Senna in Arabia ; others of them said, it was 
brought from Cashmir. The Cabul Jews, who travel annually into 
the interior of China, remarked, that in some synagogues the Law is 
still found written on a roll of leather ; not on vellum, but on a soft 
flexible leather, made of goat-skins, and dyed red. It is evident that 
the Jews, in the time of Moses, had the art of preparing and dyeing 
skins ; for rams* skins dyed red, made a part of the covering for the 
tabernacle (Exod. xxvi. 14.) ; and it is not improbable, that the very 
autograph of the Law, written by the hand of Moses, was written on 
skins so prepared. The antient rules prescribed to the Jewish scribes 
direct, that the Law be so written, provided it be done on the skins 
of clean animals, such as sheep, goat, or calf-skins : therefore this MS., 
and many others in the hands of the Jews, agree in the same as an 
antient practice. The Cabul Jews, above noticed, show that copies 
of the Law, written on leather skins, are to be found among their 
people in India and China ; and hence we have no doubt, that such 
are copies of very antient MSS. 3 The Cambridge Roll, or Indian 

1 According to tbe information collected from various sources, by Professor Bauer, it 
does not appear that tbe manuscripts of the Chinese Jews are of any remote antiquity, or 
are calculated to afford any assistance to biblical critics. Although Jews have resided in 
China for many centuries, yet they have no antient manuscripts, those now in use being 
subsequent to the fifteenth century. Critica Sacra, pp. 405 — 407. See an account of 
the Hebrseo- Chinese manuscripts in Koegler’s Notitxa S. S. Bibliorum Judseorum in 
Imperio Sinensi. Edit. 2. 8vo. Halae ad Salam, 1805. Brotier, in his edition of 
Tacitus, (vol. iii. pp. 567. et seq. ) has given the best account that is extant of the Jews in 
China, a colony of whom settled in that country in the first century of the Christian sera. 
The reader will find an abridgment of it in Dr. Townley’s Illustrations of Biblical 
Literature, vol. i. pp. S3 — 89. 

2 See an account of these Jews in Dr. Buchanan’s “ Christian Researches,” pp. 224. 
et seg . 4th edit. 

3 Dr. Kennicott quotes from Wolfius, that a certain Jew, named Moses Pereyra, 
affirmed, he had found MS. copies of the Hebrew text in Malabar; for that the Jews, 
having escaped from Titus, betook themselves through Persia to the Malabar coast, and 
arrived there safe in number about eighty persons. Whence Wolfius concludes, that 
great fidelity is to be attached to the Malabar MSS. The Buchanan MS. may fairly be 
denominated a Malabar copy, as having been brought from those parts. « Refert Moses 
.Pereyra, se invenisse Mamiscripta Exemplaria (Hebron Textus) Malabarica. Tradit 
Judaeos, a Tito fugientes, per Persiam se ad oras Malabaricas contulisse, ibique cum 
octoginta animis salvos advenisse. Unde constat, MStis Malabaricis multum fidei tri- 
buendum esse.*’ Wolf. 4. 97. See Dr. Kennicott’s Dissertation the Second, p. 53 2. 
Oxford, 1759. 


III. Sect. I.] ' Of the Old Testament . 

copy of the Pentateuch, which may also be denominated Malabaric , 
is written on a roll of goat-skins dyed red> and was discovered by 
Dr. Buchanan in the record-chest of a synagogue of the black Jews, 
in the interior of Malayala, in the year 1 806. It measures forty-eight 
feet in length, and in breadth about twenty-two inches, or a Jewish 
cubit. The book of Leviticus and the greater part of the book of 
Deuteronomy are wanting. It appears, from calculation, that the 
original length of the roll was not less than ninety English feet. In 
its present condition it consists of thirty-seven skins ; contains one 
hundred and seventeen columns of writing perfectly clear and legible; 
and exhibits (as the subjoined fac-simile of Deut. iv. 1, 2. will show) 
a noble specimen of the manner and form of the most antient Hebrew 
manuscripts among the Jews. 

The columns are a palm of four inches in breadth, and contain from 
forty to fifty lines each, which are written without vowel points, and 
in all other respects according to the rules prescribed to the Jewish 
scribes or copyists. As some of the skins appear more decayed than 
others, and the text is evidently not all written by the same hand, 
Mr. Yeates (from whose Collation of this MS. the present account is 
abridged, and to whom the author is indebted for the preceding fac- 
simile,) is of opinion, that the roll itself comprises the fragments of 
at least three different rolls, of one common material, viz. dyed goat- 
skin, and exhibits three different specimens of writing. The old skins 
have been strengthened by patches of parchment on the back ; and 
in one place four words have been renewed by the same supply. The 
text is written in the square character, and without the vowel points 
and accents ; and the margin of the columns is every where plain, 
and free from writing of any sort. He has diligently examined and 
collated this manuscript with the printed text of Vander Hooghtfs 
edition of the Hebrew Bible ; and the result of his investigation is, 
that the amount of variations in the whole does not exceed forty , and 
that none of them are found to differ from the common reading as to 
the sense and interpretation of the text, but are merely additions or 
omissions of a jod or vau letter, expressing such words to be full or 
deficient, according to the known usage of the Hebrew tongue. But 
even this small number of readings was considerably reduced, when 
compared with the text of Athias’s edition, printed at Amsterdam in 


Hebrew MSS . of the Old Testament . [Part I. Ch: 

1661 ; so that the integrity of the Hebrew text is Confirmed by this 
valuable manuscript so far as it goes, and its testimony is unques- 
tionably important. Four readings are peculiar to this copy, which 
are not to be found in Dr. Kennicott’s edition of the Hebrew Bible ; 
and many minute Masoretical distinctions, chiefly relative to the 
formation of the letters in certain words, show that the Masora of the 
Eastern Jews has its peculiarities not common with that of theWestern 
Jews : whence it is certainly determined that the present roll is not 
a copy from any exemplar of the Jews in Europe ; for no other syna- 
gogue rolls known in Europe are observed to have the same charac- 
teristics, at least as far as appears from any description of Hebrew 
manuscripts that is extant. 1 

« With respect to the several sorts of skins and hand-writing, the 
answer of some Indian Jews, when interrogated concerning this MS., 
is worthy of remark. By one account, it was brought from Senna 
in Arabia ; and by another account, it came from Cashmir ; which 
two accounts are cleared up on an examination of the MS., since, 
part of it being composed of brown skins, and the writing very simi- 
lar to that seen in rolls of Arabian and African extraction, there is 
a possibility that such part is the fragment of an Arabian or African 
MS., as those Jews relate : and the other account, viz.- that it was 
brought from Cashmir, may also be equally true ; since that part 
consisting of red skins so well corresponds with their own description 
of copies found in the synagogues of the Eastern Jews. The con- 
sideration of this point attaches still greater consequences to the roll 
itself, which, as it is found to consist of fragments of copies purely 
Oriental, and seemingly unconnected with the Western Jewish 
copies, we may now conclude the same to be ample specimens of 
copies in those parts of the world. It is true, indeed, that a great 
part of the text is wanting, and the whole book of Leviticus ; yet, 
notwithstanding the large deficencies of the MS., it ought to be a 
satisfaction to know, that herein are ample specimens of at least 
three antient copies of the Pentateuch, whose testimony is found to 
unite in the integrity and pure conservation of the Sacred Text, ac- 
knowledged by Christians and Jews in these parts of the world.” 2 

The following testimony of Bishop Marsh to the value of the 
Codex Malabaricus is too valuable to be omitted : — “ A manuscript 
Roll of the Hebrew Pentateuch, apparently of some antiquity, and 
found among the Black Jews in the interior of India, must be re- 
garded at least as a literary curiosity, deserving the attention of the 
learned in general. And as this manuscript appears, on comparison, 
to have no important deviation from our common printed Hebrew 
text, it is of still greater value to a theologian, as it affords an addi- 
tional argument for the integrity of the Pentateuch. The Hebrew 
manuscripts of the Pentateuch, preserved in the West of Europe, 
though equally derived, with the Hebrew manuscripts preserved in 
India, from the autograph of Moses, must have descended from it 
through very different channels ; and therefore the close agreement 
of the former with the latter is a proof, that they have preserved the 

i See Mr. YeateS’s Collation of an Indian Copy of the Pentateuch, pp. 2, 3. 6, 7. 
^ Ibid. p. 8. 


III. Sect. II.] Manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch . 

original text in great purity, since the circumstances, under which 
the MS. was found, forbid the explanation of that agreement on the 
principle of any immediate connexion. It is true that, as this manu- 
script (or rather the three fragments of which this manuscript is 
composed) was probably written much later than the time when the 
Masoretic text was established by the learned Jews of Tiberias, it 
may have been wholly derived from that Masoretic text : and in this 
case it would afford only an argument, that the Masoretic text had 
preserved its integrity, and would not affect the question, whether 
the Masoretic text itself were an accurate representative of the 
Mosaic autograph. But, on the other hand, as the very peculiar 
circumstances, under which the manuscript was found, render it at 
least possible, that the influence of the Masora, which was extended 
to the African and European Hebrew manuscripts by the settlement 
of the most distinguished Oriental Jews in Africa and Spain, never 
reached the mountainous district in the South of India ; as it is pos- 
sible, that the text of the manuscript in question was derived from 
manuscripts anterior to the establishment of the Masora, manuscripts 
even which might have regulated the learned Jews of Tiberias in 
the formation of their own text, the manuscript appears for these 
reasons to merit particular attention.” 1 Such being the value of 
this precious manuscript, Mr. Yeates has conferred a great service 
on the biblical student by publishing his collation, of which future 
editors of the Hebiew Bible will doubtless avail themselves. 

In the seventh and following volumes of the Classical Journal 
there is a catalogue of the biblical, biblico- oriental, and classical 
manuscripts at present existing in the various public libraries in 
Great Britain. 



I. Origin of the Samaritans . — II. Account of the Samaritan Pentateuch . 

— Manuscripts of it III. Variations of the Samaritan Pentateuch 

from the Hebrew . — IV. Versions of the Samaritan Pentateuch . 

I. Origin of the Samaritans. 

The Samaritans being generally considered as a Jewush sect, the 
specification of their tenets properly belongs to the third volume of 
this work. At present, it will be sufficient to remark that they were 
descended from an intermixture of the ten tribes with the Gentile 
nations. This origin rendered them odious to the Jews, who refused' 
to acknowledge them as Jewish citizens, or to permit them to assist 
in rebuilding the Temple, after their return from the Babylonish 
captivity. In consequence of this rejection, as well as of other causes 
of dissension, the Samaritans erected a temple on Mount Gerizim, 
and instituted sacrifices according to the prescriptions of the Mosaic 
law. Hence arose that inveterate schism and enmity between the 
two nations, so frequently mentioned or alluded to in the New Tes- 
tament. The Samaritans (who still exist but are greatly reduced in 

i See Yeates*s Collation Of an Indian Copy of the Pentateuch, &c. pp. 40, 41. 

94? Manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch . [Part I. Ch. 

numbers) reject all the sacred books of the Jews except the Penta- 
teuch, or five books of Moses. Of this they preserve copies in the 
antient Hebrew characters : which as there has been no friendly 
intercourse between them and the Jews since the Babylonish capti- 
vity, there can be no doubt were the same that were in use before 
that event, though subject to such variations as will always be occa- 
sioned by frequent transcribing. And so inconsiderable are the vari- 
ations from our present copies (which were those of the Jews), that 
by this means we have a proof that those important books have been 
preserved uncorrupted for the space of nearly three thousand years, 
so as to leave no room to doubt that they are the same which were 
actually written by Moses. 

II. Account of the Samaritan Pentateuch. 

Although the Samaritan Pentateuch was known to and cited by 
Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, Procopius of Gaza, Diodorus of 
Tarsus, Jerome, Syncellus, and other antient fathers, yet it after- 
wards fell into oblivion for upwards of a thousand years, so that its 
very existence began to be questioned. Joseph Scaliger was the first 
who excited the attention of learned men to this valuable relic of an- 
tiquity ; and M. Peiresc procured a copy from Egypt, which, together 
with the ship that brought it, was unfortunately captured by pirates. 
More successful was the venerable Archbishop Usher, who procured 
six copies from the East; and from another copy, purchased by 
Pietro della Valle for M. de Sancy, (then ambassador from France 
to Constantinople, and afterwards Archbishop of St. Maloes,) Father 
Morinus printed the Samaritan Pentateuch, for the first time, in the 
Paris Polyglott. This was afterwards reprinted in the London Po- 
lyglott by 7 Bishop Walton, who corrected it from three manuscripts 
which had formerly belonged to Archbishop Usher. A neat edition 
of this Pentateuch, in Hebrew characters, was edited by Dr. Blayney, 
?n octavo, Oxford, 1790. 

Seventeen manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch are known to 
be extant, of which Dr. Kennicott has given a minute description. 
Six of these manuscripts are in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, and 
one in the Cotton Library in the British Museum: concerning a few of 
the most valuable of these, the following particulars may not be unac- 
ceptable. They are numbered according to Dr. Kennicott’s notation. 

1. Cod. 127- is preserved in the British Museum. (Bibl. Cotton. 
Claudius, B. 8.) It is one of the six MSS. procured by Archbishop 
Usher, by whom it was presented to Sir Robert Cotton. This 
very valuable manuscript is complete, and was transcribed entirely 
by one hand, on two hundred and fifty-four pages of vellum. It is 
in an excellent state of preservation, a leaf of fine paper having 
been carefully placed between every two leaves of the vellum. This 
MS. was written, a. d. 1362. 

2. Cod. 62. is preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford ; and 
was alsb purchased by Archbishop Usher, from whose heirs the 
curators of that library bought it, with many other MSS. This 
manuscript is in large quarto, and contains an Arabic version in 
Samaritan letters, placed in a column parallel to the Samaritan text. 
Unhappily there are many cWms in it. Dr Kennicott attributes a 

III. Sect. II.] Manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch . 95 

high value to this manuscript which was written about the middle 
of the thirteenth century. 

Cod. 197. is a most valuable manuscript in the Ambrosian Li- 
brary at Milan, which was collated for Dr. Kennicott by Dr. Branca, 
who is of opinion that it is certainly not later than the tenth century. 
It is imperfect in many places ; and is very beautifully written on ex** 
tremely thin vellum, in red characters. 

Cod. 363. (No. 1. of the MSS. in the Library of the Oratory at 
Paris,) is the celebrated manuscript bought by Pietro della Valle of 
the Samaritans, in 1616, and printed by Morinus in 1631-33. It 
is written throughout by one hand ; and, though no date is assigned 
to it, Dr. Kennicott thinks it was written towards the close of the 
eleventh century. It was collated for Dr. Kennicott by Dr. Bruns, 
in some select passages. 1 

III. Variations of the Samaritan Pentateuch from the Hebrew. 

The celebrated critic, Le Clerc \ has instituted a minute compa- 
rison of the Samaritan Pentateuch with the Hebrew text ; and has, 
with much accuracy and labour, collected those passages in which 
he is of opinion that the former is more or less correct than the 
latter. For instance — 

1. The Samaritan text appears to be more correct than^the Hebrew, in 
Gen. ii. 4-. vii. 2. xix. 19. xx. 2. xxiii. 16. xxiv. 14. xlix. 10, 11. 1.26, 
Exod.i. 2. iv. 2. 

2. It is expressed more conformably to analogy , in Gen. xxxi.39* xxxv, 
26. xxxvii. 17- xli. 34. 43. xlvii. 3. Deut. xxxii. 5. 

3. It has glosses and additions in Gen. xxix. 15. xxx. 36. xli. 16. Exod. 
vii. 18. viii. 23. ix. 5. xxi.20. xxii.5. xxiii. 10. xxxii. 9. Lev. i. 10. xvii, 
4. Deut. v. 21. 

4. It appears to ham been altered by a critical hand, in Gen. ii. 2. iv. 10. 
ix.5. x. 19. xi. 21. xviii-3. xix. 12. xx.16- xxiv. 3 8.55. xxxv. 7. xxxvi. 
6. xli. 50. Exod. i. 5. xiii. 6. xv. 5. Num. xxii. 32. 

5. It is more full than the Hebrew text , in Gen.v. 8. xi. 31. xix. 9. 
xxvii. 34. xxxix. 4. xliii. 25. Exod. xii. 40. xl. 17- Num. iv. 14. Deut. 
xx. 16- 

6. It is defective in Gen. xx. 16. and xxv. 14. 

It agrees with the Septuagint version in Gen. iv. 8. xix. 12. xx.16. 
xxiii. 2. xxiv. 55. 62. xxvi. 18. xxix. 27. xxxv. 29. xxxix. S. xli. 16. 43. 
xliii. 26* xlix. 26. Exod. viii. 3. and in many other passages. Though, 

7. It sometimes varies from the Septuagint, as in Gen. i. 7* v. 29. viii. 
3.7. xlix. 22. Num. xxii. 4. 

The differences between the Samaritan and Hebrew Pentateuchs 
may be accounted for, by the usual sources of various readings, viz. 
the negligence of copyists, introduction of glosses from the margin 
into the text, the confounding of similar letters, the transposition of 
letters, the addition of explanatory words, &c. The Samaritan 
Pentateuch, however, is of great use aud authority in establishing 
correct readings: in many instances it agrees remarkably with the 
Greek Septuagint, and it contains numerous and excellent various 
lections, which are in every respect preferable to the received Ma- 

1 Kennicott, Diss. XI. pp. 538 — 540., and Diss. Gen. pp. 81. 76. 88. 98. 

2 Comment, in Pentateuch, Index, ii. Se^ also some additional observations on the 
differences between the ( Samaritan and Hebrew Pentateuchs, in Dr. Kennicott’s Remarks 
on Select Passages in the Old Testament, pp. 43—47. 


Vmions of the Samaritan Pentateuch . [Part I. Ch. 

soretic readings, and are further confirmed by the agreement of 
other antient versions. 

The most material variations between the Samaritan Pentateuch 
and the Hebrew, which affect the authority of the former, occur, 
first, in the prolongation of the patriarchal generations ; and, 
secondly, in the alteration of Ebal into Gerizim (Deut. xxvii.), in 
order to support their separation from the Jews. The chronology 
of the Samaritan Pentateuch has been satisfactorily vindicated by 
the Rev. Dr. Hales, whose arguments, however, will not admit of 
abridgment 1 ; and with regard to the charge of altering the Pen- 
tateuch, it has been shown by Dr. Kennicott, from a consideration 
of the character of the Samaritans, their known reverence for the 
law, our Lord’s silence on the subject in his memorable conversation 
with the woman of Samaria, and from various other topics; that 
what almost all biblical critics have hitherto considered as a wilful 
corruption by the Samaritans, is in all probability the true reading, 
and that the corruption is to be charged on the Jews themselves. 
In judging therefore of the genuineness of a reading, we are not to 
declare absolutely for one of these Pentateuchs against the other, 
but to prefer the true readings in both. cc One antient copy,” Dr. 
Kennicott remarks, with equal truth and justice, “has been received 
from the Jews, and we are truly thankful for it : another antient 
copy is offered by the Samaritans; let us thankfully accept that 
likewise. Both have been often transcribed; both therefore may 
contain errors. They differ in many instances, therefore the errors 
must be many. Let the two parties be heard without prejudice ; 
let their evidences be weighed with impartiality; and let the genuine 
words of Moses be ascertained by their joint assistance. Let the 
variations of all the manuscripts on each side be carefully collected ; 
and then critically examined by the context and the antient versions. 
If the Samaritan copy should be found in some places to correct the 
Hebrew, yet will the Hebrew copy in other places correct the Sa- 
maritan. Each copy therefore is invaluable; each copy therefore 
demands our pious veneration, and attentive study. The Penta- 
teuch will never be understood perfectly, till we admit the authority 

of BOTH . 2 

IV. Versions of the -Samaritan Pentateuch. 

Of the Samaritan Pentateuch two versions are extant; one in the 
proper Samaritan dialect, which is usually termed the Samaritan 
version, and another in Arabic. 

1. The Samaritan version was made in Samaritan characters, from 
the Hebrmo -Samaritan text into the Samaritan dialect, which is 
intermediate between the Plebrew and the Aramaean languages. 
This version is of great antiquity, having been made at least before 
the time of Origen, and not improbably before the commencement 
of the Christian aera. The author of the Samaritan version is un- 
known, but he has in general adhered very closely and faithfully to 
the original text ; so that this version is almost exactly the counter- 
part ot the original Hebrew-Samaritan codex with all its various 

1 Analysis of Chronology, vol. i. pp. 80, et seq. 
s Kennicott, Diss. ii. pp. 20 — 165. 

III. Sect. III.] On G?'ee/c Manuscripts. 97 

readings. This shows, in a degree, really surprising, how very 
carefully and accurately the Hebrew Pentateuch has been copied 
and preserved by the Samaritans, from the antient times in which 
their version w T as made. 1 

2. The Arabic version of the Samaritan Pentateuch is also extant 
in Samaritan characters, and was executed by Abu Said, a.d. 1070, 
in order to supplant the Arabic translation of the Jewish Rabbi, 
Saadia Gaon, which had till that time been in use among the Sama- 
ritans. Abu Said has very closely followed the Samaritan Pen- 
tateuch, whose readings he expresses, even where the latter differs 
from the Hebrew text: in some instances, however, both Bishop 
Walton and Bauer have remarked, that he has borrowed from the 
Arabic version of Saadia. On account of the paucity of manuscripts 
of the original Samaritan Pentateuch, Bauer thinks this version will 
be found of great use in correcting its text. Some specimens of it 
have been published by Dr. Durell in the 6C Hebrew Text of the 
Parallel Prophecies of Jacob relating to the Twelve Tribes,” &c. (Ox- 
ford, 1763, 4to.) and before him by Castell in the fourth volume of 
the London Polyglott; also by Hwiid, at Rome, in 1780, in 8vo., 
and by Paulus, at Jena, in 1789, in 8vo. 2 




I. On what Materials written. — II. Form of Letters.^- III. Abbreviations. 
— IV. Codices Palimpsesti or Rcscripii . — V. Account of the different 
Families , Recensions, or Editions of Manuscripts of the New Testa- 
ment . — 1. The System of Dr. Griesbach and Michaelis 2. Of M. 

Matthcei. — 3. Of Mr. Nolan . — 4. Of Prof. Hug. — 5. Of Prof. 
Scholz. — VI. On the Fcedus cum Greeds , or Coincidence between many 
Greek Majinscripts and the Vulgate Latin Version. 

I. Ti he Greek manuscripts, which have descended to our time, are 
written either on vellum or on paper; and llxeir external form and 
condition vary, like the manuscripts of other antient authors. The 
vellum is either purple-coloured or of its natural hue, and Is either 
thick or thin. Manuscripts on very thin vellum were always held 
in the highest esteem. The paper also is either made of cotton, or 
the common sort manufactured from linen, and is either glazed, or 
laid (as it is technically termed), that is, of the ordinary roughness. 
Not more than six manuscript fragments on purple vellum are known 
to be extant; they are described in the following sections of this 
chapter. The Codex Claromontanus, of which a brief notice is also 
given in a subsequent page, is written on very thin vellum. All 

1 North American Review, New Series, vol. xxii* p. 313. 

* Bp. Walton, Proleg. c. xi. §§ 10*— 21. pp. 527 — 553. Carp 2 ov. Critica Sacra, 
pp. 585 — 620. Lcubdcn, Pliilologus Hebrseus, pp. 59 — 67. Bauer, Critica Sacra, 
pp. 325 — 335. Muntinghe, Expositio Critices Veteris Fcederis, pp. 148, 149. 



General Observations 

[Part I. Ch. III. 

manuscripts on paper are of a much later date; those on cotton paper 
being posterior to the ninth century, and those on linen subsequent 
to the twelfth century ; and if the paper be of a very ordinary qua- 
lity, Wetstein pronounces them to have been written in Italy, in the 
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. 

II. The letters are either capital (which in the time of Jerome 
were called uncial , i. e. initial) or cursive , i. e. small ; the capital let- 
ters, again, are of two kinds, either unadorned and simple, and made 
with straight thin strokes, or thicker, uneven, and angular. Some 
of them are supported on a sort of base, while others are decorated, 
or rather burthened with various tops. As letters of the first kind 
are generally seen on antient Greek monuments, while those of the 
last resemble the paintings of semi-barbarous times, manuscripts 
written with the former are generally supposed to be as old as the 
fifth century, and those written with the latter are supposed to be 
posterior to the ninth century. Greek manuscripts were usually 
written in capital letters till the seventh century, and mostly without 
any divisions of words; and capitals were in general use until the 
eighth .century, and some even so late as the ninth ; but there is a 
strikingtdifference in the forms of the letters after the seventh century. 
Great alterations took place in the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries: 
the Greek letters in the manuscripts copied by the Latins in the ninth 
century, are by no means regular ; the a, e, and y, being inflected 
like the a , e, and y , of the Latin alphabet. Towards the close of 
the tenth century, small or cursive letters were generally adopted ; 
and Greek manuscripts written in and since the eleventh century are 
in small letters, and greatly resemble each other, though some few 
exceptions occur to the contrary. Flourished letters rarely occur in 
Greek manuscripts of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth cen- 
turies. 1 * 3 The fac-similes of the Alexandrian and other manuscripts, 
given in the subsequent pages of this work, will furnish the reader 
with a tolerably correct idea of the various styles of Greek writing 
which obtained at different periods between the sixth and the four- 
teenth centuries. 

The most antient manuscripts are written without accents, spirits, 
9 r any separation of the words ; nor was it until after the ninth 
century that the copyists began to leave spaces between the words. 
Michaelis, after Wetstein, ascribes the insertion of accents to Eutha- 
lius, bishop of Sulca in Egypt, a. d. 4*58. 2 

III. Nearly the same mode of spelling obtains in antient manu- 
scripts which prevails in Greek printed books; but, ever) in the 
earliest manuscripts, we meet with some words that are abbreviated 
by putting the first and last letters, and sometimes also the middle 
letter, for an entire word, and drawing a line over the top : thus 

1 Wetstein’s Prolegomena to his edition of the Greek Testament, vol i np 1—3 

Astle on the Origin of Writing pp. CO-76. 2d edit. Wetstein has given an alphabet from 
various Greek manuscripts, and Astle has illustrated his observations with several very line 
■engravings. J 

3 Wetstein, Proleg. p. 73. Michaelis, vol. ii, pn. 519 — 524 , 

Sect. III. § 1.] 

On Greek Manuscripts. 


ANOS, IAHM, AAA, respectively denote Qso$ God 9 K vpios Lord , Iyprot/;- 
Jesus , XpifOf Christ , T<oj a sew, 2cor^p Saviour , IcrpanjA Israel , IlvzufjLa 
spirit 5 IlaTTjp fatheVy M^rjyp mother , heaven 9 Av$f>w&ro$ man , 

lepoucraA>)jU. Jerusalem , AauiS David . 1 At the beginning of a new 
book, which always commences at the top of a page, the first three, 
four, or five lines are frequently written in vermilion ; and, with the 
exception of the Alexandrian and Vatican manuscripts, all the moat 
antient codices now extant have the Eusebian xe$a\cacc and tjtAoi, 
of which we have given an account in a subsequent chapter. 1 2 

Very few manuscripts contain the whole either of the Old or of 
the New Testament. By far the greater part have only the four 
Gospels, because they were most frequently read in the churches ; 
others comprise only the Acts of the Apostles and the Catholic 
Epistles; others, again, have the Acts, and St. Paul's Epistles; and 
a very few contain the Apocalypse. Almost all of them, especially 
the more antient manuscripts, are imperfect, either from the injuries 
of time, or from neglect. 3 

All manuscripts, the most antient not excepted, have erasures and 
corrections; which, however, were not always effected so dexter- 
ously, but that the original writing may sometimes be seen. Where 
these alterations have been made by the copyist of the manuscript, 
(<£ primd manu , as it is termed,) they are preferable to those made 
by later hands, or a secundd manu . These erasures were sometimes 
made by drawing a line through the word, or, what is tenfold worse*, 
by the penknife. But, besides these modes of obliteration, the copyist 
frequently blotted out the old writing with a sponge , and wrote other 
words in lieu of it : nor was this practice confined to a single letter 
or word, as may be seen in the Codex Bezae. 4 Authentic instances 
are on record, in which whole books have been thus obliterated, and 
other writing has been substituted in the place of the manuscript so 
blotted out r but where the writing has already faded through age, 
they preserved their transcriptions without further erasure. 

IV. These manuscripts are termed Codices Palimpsest i or Rescript i. 
Before the invention of paper, the great scarcity of parchment in 
different places induced many persons to obliterate the works of 
antient writers, in order to transcribe their own, or those of some 
other favourite author in their place : hence, doubtless, the works of 
many eminent writers have perished, and particularly those of the 
greatest antiquity ; for such, as were comparatively recent, w r ere 
transcribed, to satisfy the immediate demand ; while those, which 

1 Concerning Greek Abbreviations, see Montfuucon’s l’aloeographia Graca, pp. 345. 
— 370. Mr. Astle lias also given a specimen of Greek abbreviations from two Psalters. 
— On Writing, p. 7G. plate vi. 

a See Chap. IV. Sect. II. pp. 16*9, 170. infra, 

3 The Codex Cottonianus, for instance, when perfect, contained only the Book of 
Genesis ; the Codex Ciesareus contains only part of the same book, together with a frag- 
ment of the Gospel of St. Luke ; the Alexandrian manuscript wants the fiist twenty-four 
chapters of St. Matthew’s Gospel; and the Codex Bezaj contains only the four Gospels 
and the Acts of the Apostles. 

4 Wetstein’s Prolegomena, pp. 3~8, Gricsbach has discovered the hands of tfiVE 
different correctors in the Codex Claromontanus. See his Symbol® Critic®, tom. ii. 
pp. 32 — 52. 

H 2 


General Observations 

[Part I. Ch. III. 

were already dim with age, were erased, 1 . It was for a long time 
thought, that this destructive practice was confined to the eleventh, 
twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries, and that it chiefly pre- 
vailed among the Greeks : it must, in fact, be considered as the con- 
sequence of the barbarism which overspread those dark ages of ignor- 
ance; but this destructive operation was likewise practised by the La- 
tins, and is also of a more remote date than has usually been supposed. 

In general, a Codex Rescriptus is easily known, as it rarely hap- 
pens that the former writing is so completely erased, as not to exhibit 
some traces: in a few instances, both writings are legible. Many 
such manuscripts are preserved in the library of the British Museum. 
Montfaucon found a manuscript in the Colbert library, which had 
been written about the eighth century, and originally contained the 
works of St. Dionysius : new matter had been written over it, three 
or four centuries afterwards, and both continued legible. * Muratori 
saw in the Ambrosian library a manuscript comprising the works of 
the venerable Bede, the writing of which was from eight to nine 
hundred years old, and which had been substituted for another up- 
wards of a thousand years old. Notwithstanding the efforts which 
had been made to erase the latter, some phrases could be deciphered, 
which indicated it to be an antient pontifical . 3 The indefatigable 
researches of signor Angelo Mai' (principal keeper of the Vatican 
Library at Rome) have discovered several valuable remains of bibli- 
cal and classical literature in the Ambrosian Library at Milan 1 ; and 
a short account of some of the principal Codices Rescripti of the 
New Testament, or of parts thereof, will be found in the sequel of 
this section. 

V. The total number of manuscripts of the New Testament (whe- 
ther they have been transmitted to us entire or in fragments), which 
are known to have been wholly or partially collated, amounts nearly 
to five hundred; but this number forms only a small part of the 
manuscripts found in public and private libraries. The result of 
these collations has shown that certain manuscripts have an affinity 
to each other, and that their text is distinguished from that of others 
by characteristic marks; and eminent critics, (particularly Griesbach, 
who devoted the whole of his life to sacred criticism,) alter diligently 
comparing the quotations from the New Testament in the writings 
of Clement of Alexandria and of Origen with those made by 
lian and Cyprian, have ascertained that, so early as the third century, 
there were in existence two families , recensions^ or editions ,r> of ma- 

1 Peignot, Essai sur l’Histoire de Parchemin, pp. 83. et seq. 

" Palinogr. Graec. pp. 231. 233. The greater part of the manuscripts on parchment 
which Montfaucon had seen, he affirms, were written on parchment, from which some 
former treatise had been erased, except in those of a very antient date. Mem. de 1* Acad, 
de Inscript, tom. ix. p. 32 5. 

3 Muratori. Antiq, Ital. tom. iii. diss. 43. col. 833, 834. 

4 See a brief notice of Signor Mai’s discovery of a Codex Rescriptus of Saint Paul's 
Epistles, in pp. 140, 141. infra , of the present volume. 

5 Benge! expressed this relationship or affinity between manuscripts by the term family . 
{Introd, ad Crisin N. T. §§ 27 — 30.) Semler (Apparatus ad LiberaUrn Novi Testament! 
Interpretationem , p. 45. ) and Griesbach (Symbols Critical, tom. i. p. cxviin ) use the 
term recensio, recension , that is edition , which last term is adopted by Michaclis. vol. ii, 

n I * ' ' 

Sect. III. $ 1.] 


On Greek Manuscripts. 

nuscripts, or, in other words, two entirely different texts of the New 
Testament. 1 Michaelis has observed that, as different countries had 
different versions according to their respective languages, their ma- 
nuscripts naturally resembled their respective versions, as these ver- 
sions, generally speaking, were made from such manuscripts as were 
in common use. Five different systems of recensions or editions 
have been proposed, viz. by Griesbach and Michaelis, by Matthaei, 
by Mr. Nolan, by Professor Hug, and by Professor Scholz. 

1. The basis of Dr, GriesbacjTs system is, the division of the 
Greek manuscripts of the New Testament into three classes, each of 
which is considered as an independent witness for the various read- 
ings which it contains. The value of a reading, so far as manuscript 
authority is regarded, is decided by Griesbach, not according to the 
individual manuscript in which it is found, but according to the num- 
ber of classes by which it is supported. The classes, under which 
he arranges all the Greek manuscripts are the following; viz. 1. The 
Alexandrine ; 2. The Occidental or Western ; and 3. The Byzan- 
tine or Oriental, to which Michaelis has added, 4. The Edessene. 
To each of these are given the appellation of recension or edition , as 
we commonly say of printed books. 

(1.) The first class, or Alexandrine Recension, which is also 
called the Egyptian Recension, comprises those manuscripts, which, 
in remarkable and characteristic readings, agree with the quotations 
of the early Alexandrine writers, particularly Origen and Clement 
of Alexandria. After them, this recension was adopted by 'the 
Egyptian Greeks. 

To this class Griesbach refers the Codex Alexandrinus 3 , noted by the 
letter A., but in the epistles of Saint Paul only ; and also B, the Vatican 
manuscript. To this class also Dr. Scholz refers C., the Codex Ephremi ; 
L. the Codex Regius 62., an imperfect manuscript of the four Gospels of 
the eighth century, collated by Wetstein and Griesbach ; P. the Guelpher- 
bytanus A,, a Codex Rcscriptus of the sixth century, comprising frag- 
ments of the four Gospels ; Q. the Guelpherbytanus B., also a Codex 
Rescriptus of the same date, and containing some fragments of Luke 
and John ; T. the Codex Borgiae I., containing a Greek Sahidic version 
of John vi. 28 — 67- vii. 6. viii. 31., executed in the fourth century; 
Griesb. 22., the Codex Regius 72., a fragment of Matt. i. 1. ii. 2., writ- 
ten in the eleventh century ; Griesb. 33., the Codex Regius 14., a muti- 
lated MS. of the Old and NewTestament, of the eleventh century; Griesb. 
102., the Codex Medicseus, which comprises from Matt. xxiv. to Mark 
viii. 1,, and the Codex Regius 305., a MS. of the thirteenth century. 3 
The Alexandrine Recension is followed by the Coptico-Memphitic, Cop- 
tieo-Basmuric, Coptico-Sahidic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and the Syro-Phi- 
loxenian versions ; and it is the text cited by the fathers, Eusebius, 

» In the second volume of Griesbach’ s Symbol® Critic® (pp. 229 — 620.) there is a 
laborious collation of the quotations from the New Testament, made by Origen and 
Clement of Alexandria, with the Vulgate or common Greek text. 

a See nn account of these and of the other MSS. mentioned in this Section in pp. 115 
— 157. infra. The letters and figures, above used, are those employed by Griesbach, to 
denote the several manuscripts collated or consulted by him for his edition of the New 
Testament. They are explained in the Prolegomena to his first volume. 

3 The manuscripts in the Royal Library at Paris are generally known by the appel- 
lation of Codices Regii. 

II 3 


General Observations 

[Part I. Ch. III. 

Anastasius, Ammonius, Didymus, Cyril of Alexandria, Marcus, Macarius, 
Cosmas Indicopleustes, Nonnus, Isidore of Pelusium, Theodore of Pelu- 
sium, and frequently also by Chrysostom. 

(2.) The Occidental or Western Recension is that which was 
adopted by the Christians of Africa (especially by Tertullian and 
Cyprian), Italy, Gaul, and the west of Europe generally. 

According to Griesbach, it is followed in A. the Codex Alexandrinus, 
in the Acts of the Apostles, and the Catholic Epistles; and according to 
Dr. Scholz, in D. the Codex Bezae or Cantabrigiensis ; in the Codex 
Regius 314-., a MS. of the eighth century, containing Luke ix. 36 — 47. 
and x. 12 — 22.; Griesb. 1. (Basileensis) ; Griesb. 13. the Codex Regius 
50*, a mutilated MS. of the twelfth century, collated for Birch’s edition 
of the four Gospels ; Griesb. 28. the Codex Regius 379., a MS. of the 
eleventh century; Griesb. 69. the Codex Leieestrensis, and 124., the Co- 
dex Vindobonensis (Lambecii 31.); Griesb. 131. the Codex Vaticanus 
360, a MS. of the eleventh century, collated by Birch ; Griesb. 157- the 
Codex Vaticanus 2, a MS. of the twelfth century, also collated by Birch ; 
the Codex Regius 177. containing the four Gospels, with very copious 
scholia, written (Dr. Scholz thinks) in the eleventh century; and in the 
Codex Regius, 375-, containing lessons from the New Testament, except- 
ing the Revelation, and written early in the eleventh century: in the 
Gospels, it very seldom differs from the Codex Bezse, but in the Acts of 
the Apostles and in the Epistles, it chiefly agrees with the Alexandrine 
recension. With these manuscripts sometimes harmonise the Sahidic 
Version, made in the fourth century, the Syriac Version of Jerusalem, 
and the readings in the margin of the Syro-Philoxenian Version ; as also 
the Ante-Hieronymian or Old Latin Versions, which were in use before 
the Vulgate Version. 

The Western Edition was cited by the African fathers, Tertullian, Cy- 
prian, Lactantius, Victorinus, Augustine, and by the unknown author of 
the book against Fulgentius the Donatist, by the Italic fathers, Zeno of 
Verona, Gaudentius of Brescia, Chromatius of Aquileia, Ambrose, the 
author of certain pieces which are attributed to that writer, Rufinus, the 
author of the Opus Imperfectum on St. Matthew, Gregory surnamed the 
Great, and Lucifer Bishop of Cagliari ; and by the Gallic fathers, Irenaeus, 
Hilary, Julius Firmicus Maternus, Phcebadius (a Spaniard) bishop of 
Agen, Juvencus, and by the Mozarabic Ritual. With this edition also 
coincides the Vulgate Latin version, which is followed by Isidore bishop 
of Seville, Remigius, Bede, Rabanus Maurus, Haymo, Anselm, Pietro 
Damiani, Bernard, and all subsequent writers in communion with the 
Latin church for the last thousand years, as well as by the Lectionaries, 
Breviaries, Antient Missals, Acts of the Martyrs, and other ecclesiastical 
books of that church. 1 

(3.) Towards the end of the fourth century, and during the fifth 
and sixth centuries, critics have observed a text differing from the 
two first, and which they call the Bvzantine or Oriental Recen- 
sion or Edition, because it was in general use at Constantinople, after 
that city became the capital and metropolitan see of the eastern empire. 

With this edition are closely allied those of the neighbouring provinces, 
whose inhabitants were subject to the spiritual jurisdiction of the patriarch 
of Constantinop le. 2 The readings of the Byzantine Recension are those 

1 Scholz, Curse Critieae in Historians Textus Evangeliorum, pp. 27 30. 

s Michaelis remarks, that the greatest number of manuscripts written on Mount Athos 
are evidently of the Byzantine edition ; and he thinks it probable that almost all the 
Moscow manuscripts, of which M. Matthsej has given extracts, belong to this edition. As 


Sect. III. § 1.] On Greek Manuscripts . 

which are most commonly found in the Kou/ij E^Soem;, or printed Vulgate 
Greek Text, and are also most numerous in the existing manuscripts 
which correspond to it. Griesbach reckons upwards of one hundred 
manuscripts of this class, which minutely harmonise with each other. On 
account of the many alterations, that were unavoidably made in the long 
interval between thefourth and fifteenth centuries, Michaelis proposes to di- 
vide the Byzantine edition into antient and modern ; but he does not, spe- 
cify any criteria by vvhieh we can determine the boundaries between these 
two classes. The Byzantine text is found in the four Gospels of the Alex- 
andrian manuscript ; it was the original of the Sclavonic or old Russian ver- 
sion, and was cited by Chrysostom and Theophylact bishop of Bulgaria. 

As the Peschito, or Old Syriac Version of the New Testament 
differs from the three preceding recensions, Michaelis after Gries- 
bach has instituted another, which he designates, 

(4.) The Edessene Edition, comprehending the special Asiatic 
instruments, as they were termed by Griesbach, or those Manuscripts 
from which that Version was made. 

Of this edition no manuscripts are extant ; which circumstance Mi- 
chaelis accounts for, by the early prejudice of the Syrian literati in favour 
of whatever was Grecian, and also by the wars that devastated the East 
for many ages subsequent to the fifth century. But by some accident 
which is difficult to be explained, manuscripts are found in the west of 
Europe, accompanied even with a Latin translation, such as the Codex 
Bezse, which so eminently coincide with the Old Syriac Version, that 
their affinity is indisputable. 

Although the readings of the Western, Alexandrine, and Edessene 
editions sometimes differ, yet they very frequently harmonise with each 
other. This coincidence Michaelis ascribes to their high antiquity, as 
the oldest manuscripts extant belong to one of these editions, and the 
translations themselves are antient, A reading confirmed by three of 
them is supposed to be of the very highest authority ; yet the true read- 
ing may sometimes be found only in the fourth. 

Most of the Manuscripts now extant exhibit one of the texts above 
described; some are composed of two or three recensions. No in- 
dividual manuscript preserves any recension in a pure state ; but 
manuscripts are said to be of the Alexandrian or Western Recension, 
as the appropriate readings of each preponderate. The margins of 
these manuscripts, as well as those of the Ethiopic, Armenian, Sahi- 
dic, and Syro-Philoxenian versions, and the Syriac version of Jerusa- 
lem, contain the Alexandrian variations for the Western readings, or 
vice versft ; and some Byzantine manuscripts have the Alexandrian 
or Western various lections in their margins. 1 

Each of these recensions has characteristics peculiar to itself. The 
Occidental or Western preserves harsh readings, Hebraisms, and 
solecisms, which the Alexandrine has exchanged for readings more 

the valuable manuscripts collected by the late learned Professor Carlyle were obtained in 
Syria, Constantinople, and the islands of the Levant, it is probable, whenever they shall be 
collated, that they will be found to coincide with the Byzantine Recension. These manu- 
scripts are preserved in the Archiopiscopal Library at Lambeth, and are described infra , 
PP* 150, 151. 

1 Michaelis, vol. ii. pp. 163 — 177. Gricsbaeh’s Symbolai Criticae, tom. i. pp. cxvii.— 
exxii. cxxxvii. clvii — clxiv. tom, ii. pp. 132 — 148. Griesbaclfs edit, of the New Test, 
vol. i. Proleg. pp. lxxiu. — lxxxi, edit. Halse, 1790. 


General Observations 

[Part I. Ch. III. 

conformable to classic usage. The Western is characterised by read- 
ings calculated to relieve the text from difficulties, and to clear the 
sense : it frequently adds supplements to the passages adduced from 
the Old Testament; and omits words that appear to be either re- 
pugnant to the context or to other passages, or to render the mean- 
ing obscure. The Alexandrine is free from the interpretations and 
transpositions of the western recensions. An explanatory reading is 
therefore suspicious in the western recension, and a classical one in 
the Alexandrine. The Byzantine or Conslantinopolitan recension 
(according to Griesbach’s system) preserves the Greek idiom still 
purer than the Alexandrine, and resembles the Western in its use 
of copious and explanatory readings. It is likewise mixed, through- 
out, with the readings of the other recensions. 

The system of recensions, above proposed by Bengel and Semler, 
and completed by the late celebrated critic Dr. Griesbach, has been 
subjected to a very severe critical ordeal ; and has been formidably 
attacked, on the Continent by the late M. Matthtei, and in this coun- 
try by the Rev. Dr. Laurence (now archbishop of Cashel) 1 , and the 
Rev. Frederic Nolan. 

2. Totally disregarding Griesbach’s system of recensions, Profes- 
sor MATTHiEi recognises only one class or family of manuscripts, 
which he terms Codices Texius Perpetui 9 and pronounces every thing 
that is derived from commentaries and scholia to be corrupt. As 
the manuscripts of the New Testament, which he found in the library 
of the Synod, came originally from Mount Athos, and other parts 
of the Greek empire, and as the Russian church is a daughter of the 
Greek church, those manuscripts consequently contain what Gries- 
bach has called the Byzantine Text ; which Matthsei admits to be the 
only authentic text, excluding the Alexandrine and Western recen- 
sions, and also rejecting all quotations from the fathers of the Greek 
church. To the class of manuscripts to which the Codex Bezse, the 
Codex Claromontanus, and others of high antiquity belong, he gave, 
in the preface to his edition of Saint John's Gospel, the appellation 
of Editio Scurrilis , nor did he apply softer epithets to those critics 
who ventured to defend such manuscripts.' 2 

3. The Rev. F. Nolan’s system of recensions is developed in his 
6£ Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or received Text of 
the New Testament (London, 1815, 8vo.) 3 That integrity he has 
confessedly established by a series of proofs and connected arguments, 
the most decisive that can be reasonably desired or expected ; but as 
these occupy nearly six hundred closely printed pages, the limits of 
this section necessarily restrict us to the following concise notice of 
his elaborate system. 

'In his “ Remarks on the Classification of Manuscripts adopted by Griesbach in his 
edition of the New Testament, 1 * Oxford, 1814. 8vo. 

2 Schoell, Hist, de la Literature Grfccque, tom. ii. p. 13G. Bishop Marsh’s Lectures, 
part ii. p. so. 

S There is a copious analysis of this work in the British Critic, (N. S. ) vol. v. pp. l 

24., from which, and from the work itself, the present notice of Mr. Nolan’s system of 
recensions is derived. 


^Sect. III. § 1.] . * ^ On Greek Manuscripts. 

i . . 

I It has been an opinion as early as the times of Bishop Walton, 
-that the purest text of the Scripture canon had been presetted at 
Alexandria; the libraries of that city having been celeb ratikf from 
an early period for their correct and splendid copies. From' the 
.identity of any MS. in its peculiar readings, with the Scripture quo- 
tations of Origen, who presided in the catechetical school of Alex- 
andria, a strong presumption arises that it contains the Alexandrine 
recension : the supposition being natural, that Origen drew his quo- 
tations from the copies generally prevalent in his native country. 
This, as we have seen, was the basis of Dr. Griesbach’s system of 
recensions : accordingly he ascribes the highest rank to the manu- 
scripts of the Alexandrine class, the authority of a/ew of which in 
his estimation outweighs that of a multitude of the Byzantine. The 
peculiar readings, which he selects from the manuscripts of this class, 
he confirms by a variety of collateral testimony, principally drawn 
from the quotations of the antient fathers and the versions made in 
the primitive ages. To the authority of Origen, however, he ascribes 
a paramount weight, taking it as the standard by which his colla- 
teral testimony is to be estimated; and using their evidence merely 
to support his testimony, or to supply it when it is deficient. The 
readings which he supports by this weight of testimony, he considers 
genuine; and, introducing a number of them into the sacred page, 
he has thus formed his corrected text of the New Testament The 
necessary result of this process, as obviously proving the existence 
of a great number of spurious readings, has been that of shaking 
the authority of the authorised English version, together with the 
foundation on which it rests. 

In combating the conclusions of Griesbach, Mr. Nolan argues, 
from the inconstancy of Origen’s quotations, that no certain conclu- 
sion can be deduced from his testimony ; he infers from the history 
of Origen, who principally wrote and published in Palestine, that the 
text, quoted by that antient father, was rather the Palestine than the 
Alexandrine ; and he proves, from the express testimony of Saint 
Jerome, that the text of Origen was really adopted in Palestine, 
while that of Hesychius was adopted at Alexandria. 

Flaving thus opened the question, and set it upon the broader 
ground assumed by those critics, who confirm the readings of the 
Alexandrine text, by the coincidence of the antient versions of the 
Oriental and Western churches; Mr. N. combats this method, pro- 
posed for investigating the genuine texts, in two modes. He first 
shows that a coincidence between the Western and Oriental churches 
does not necessarily prove the antiquity of the text which they mu- 
tually support; as the versions of the former church were corrected, 
after the texts of the latter, by Jerome and Cassiodorus, who may 
have thus created the coincidence, which is taken as a proof of the 
genuine reading. In the next place, he infers, from the prevalence 
of a text published by Eusebius of Caesarea, and from the compara- 
tively late period at which the Oriental Versions were formed, that 
their general coincidence may be traced to the influence of Eusebius’s 
> edition. This position he establishes, by a proof deduced from the 


General Observations 

[Part I. Ch. IIL 

general prevalence of Eusebius’s sections and canons in the Greek 
MSS. and antient versions, and by a presumption derived from the 
agreements of those texts and versions with each other, in omitting 
several passages contained in the Vulgate Greek, which were at 
variance with Eusebius’s peculiar opinions . 1 And having thus esta- 
blished the general influence of Eusebius’s text, he generally con- 
cludes against the stability of the critical principles on which the 
German critics have undertaken the correction of the Greek Vulgate. 

The materia] obstacles being thus removed to the establishment of 
his plan, Mr. Nolan next proceeds to investigate the different classes 
of text which exist in the Greek manuscripts. Having briefly con- 
sidered the Scripture quotations of the fathers, and shown that they 
afford no adequate criterion for reducing the text into classes, he 
proceeds to the consideration of the antient translations, and after an 
examination of the Oriental versions, more particularly of the Sahi- 
dic, he comes to the conclusion, that no version but the Latin can 
be taken as a safe guide in ascertaining the genuine text of Scripture. 
This point being premised, the author lays the foundation of his 
scheme of classification, in the following observations. 

fifi In proceeding to estimate the testimony which the Latin trans- 
lation bears to the state of the Greek text, it is necessary to premise, 
that this translation exhibits three varieties: — as corrected by Saint 
Jerome, at the desire of Pope Damasus, and preserved in the Vul- 
gate ; as corrected by Eusebius of Verceli, at the desire of Pope 
Julius, and preserved in the Codex Vercellensis; and as existing 
previously to the corrections of both, and preserved, as I conceive, 
in the Codex Brixianus. The first of these three editions of the 
Italic translation is too well known to need any description ; both the 
last are contained in beautiful manuscripts, preserved at Verceli, and 
at Brescia, in Italy. The curious and expensive manner in which at 
least the latter of these manuscripts is executed, as written on purple 
vellum in silver characters, would of itself contain no inconclusive 
proof of its great antiquity; such having been the form in which the 
most esteemed works were executed in the times of Eusebius, Chry- 
sostom, and Jerome. The former is ascribed, by immemorial tradi- 
tion, to Eusebius Vercellensis, the friend of Pope Julius and Saint 
Athanasius, and, as supposed to have been written with his own hand, 
is deposited among the relics, which are preserved, with a degree of 
superstitious reverence, in the author’s church at Verceli in Pied- 
mont. By these three editions of the translation, we might naturally 
expect to acquire some insight into the varieties of the original ; and 
this expectation is fully justified on experiment. The latter, not less 
than the former, is capable of being distributed into three kinds; 
each of which possesses an extraordinary coincidence with one of a 
correspondent kind, in the translation. In a word, the Greek manu- 
scripts are capable of being divided into three principal classes, one 

i lu the course of this discussion, Mr. Nolan assigns adequate reasons for the omission 
of the following remarkable passages, Mark xvi. 9—20., Johnviii. 1— 11., and for the 
peculiar readings of the following celebrated texts, Actsxx. 28. 1 Tim. iii. 16. 1 John 
t, 7. See his Inquiry, pp, 35 — 41. 


Sect. III. § 1.] On Greek Manuscripts. 

of which agrees with the Italic translation contained in the Brescia 
manuscript; another with that contained in the Verceli manuscript; 
and a third with that contained in the Vulgate.” 1 

Specimens of the nature and closeness of the coincidence of these 
three classes are annexed by Mr. Nolan, in separate columns, from 
which the four following examples are selected. He has prefixed the 
readings of the received text and authorised English version (from 
Matt. v. 38. 41. and 44.), in order to evince their coincidence with that 
text, to which the preference appears to be due, on account of its con- 
formity to the Italic translation contained in the Codex Brixianus. 
38. k at adovra avri ofiavroq. Rec . 

— and a tooth for a tooth. Auth. 
odovra avrt ofovraq. Cant . dentem pro dentem. Verc. oSoyTa avrt oSoy roq. Vat . et dentem pro dente, Vulg . o^oura avr i ohovroq. Mosc . et dentem pro dente. Brix. 

VTtayE jtAfiT 

Cant . 


41. inray € [abt avrov Suo. Rec . 

— go with him twain. Auth . 
avrov m aK\a Suo. vade cum illo adhuc alia duo. 


avrov $uo. Vat . vade cum illo et alia duo. Vulg . 

avrov Buo. Mosc . vade cum illo duo. Brix 

EvXoyEirE rovq 

Cant . 

EvXoyEtrt rovq 


44. EvXoyEtn rovq y.aragapcEvovq Vj uaq. Rec. 

— bless them that curse you. Auth , 

Kaluga [AEvovq vuaq. ...... desunt. Verc. 

desunt. Vulg. 

KalageDjaEVDvq vpaq. benedicite maledicentibus vos. 


44. WrgO(TEV%E(r&E VTTEg ruV EKYlgEU^OVTQV SitoKOYTCtW v^aq. Rec • 

— pray for them who despitefully use you 
and persecute you. Auth . 

'wpoo'Ev^Ecr^'E virsp rav ETtvigEaC^ovrccv jc ai orate pro calumniantibus et perse- 
biunov rov vfAuq. Cant . quentibus vos. Verc . 

'C7'goa"Eu%£cr9'£ viTEp rau diunov ruv v/y,aq ? orate pro persequentibus et calum- 
Vat . niantibus vos. Vulg. 

<&gQ<TEv%E<T§E i/TTEp rtav E r n , /\oEaC ) ovrcov orate pro calumniantibus vohzs et 
vt/.aq 9 ^lUKuvruv vpaq. ISAosc. persequentibus vos. Brix. 

The preceding short specimen will sufficiently evince the affinity 
subsisting between the Latin and Greek manuscripts, throughout the 
different classes into which they may be divided: at the same time it 
will illustrate the dissimilarity which those classes exhibit among them- 
selves, in either language, regarded separately. Still further to evince 
the affinity which in other respects they possess among themselves, Mr. 
Nolan exhibits a connected portion, comprising the first twelve verses of 
the fifth chapter of St. Matthew’s Gospel, in the original and the trans- 
lation: from which we select the six following examples : 


Codex Canlahrigiensis. Codex Vercellensis . 

1 . I8wy rovq o%kovq, uvspy] et; ro 1 . Videns autem Jesus turbam, 
Gpoij* % ai yLa^ujavloq avrov 7 roy ascendit in montem, et cum sedis- 

avru ol [XaSrfai avrov • set, accesserunt ad eum discipuli 

ejus ; 

1 Nolan’s Inquiry, pp. 58 — 61. 


General Observations [Part I. Ch. III. 

% K at avot^aq to GTO t ua ccvtqv , 
eBiSstfev avTou^ y\.£7«y* 

3. Mavta^oi o t 'Kluyjn ra ityev^cclr 

OTi aVTCHV E&TlV ’/] €aGlKEia T(dV OVpaVdiV. 

5. Ma“/.a/JtOi oi wpastq' on avrot x\y}- 

povo^/jcrovcri tvjv yvjv. & 

4>. Mauapioi ot nsvSrovYhq* on avrot 
'Sfaoay.Xvj^vj aovlat . 

6. Mavcccpioi of vcEivavleq xai Sti(/«]/7£? 
tvjv Siv'.aioariwjv* on avlot %Qp1aad'/j~ 
aovlai . 

2. Et aperuit os suum, ct docebat 
eos dicens: 

3. Beati pauperes spiritu : quoni- 
am ipsorum est regnum coelorum. 

5. Beati mites : quoniam ipsi he- 
reditate possidebunt terram. 

4. Beati qui lugent: quoniam 
ipsi consolabuntur. 

G. Beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt 
justitiam : quoniam ipsi satura- 


Codex Vaticanus . 

1 . iS&jy Se r ovq oyhovi;, avr^vj Etq to 
opo: m yat yaOtravlog avrav, TTpoG'/jXOov 
[[gsi/tw] ot [/.aOrjlat avrov' 

2. K at avot^aq to cropta av tov } fiSt- 
§z<nav avrovq Xsytcv. 

3. Mavcaptoi ot izlaxoi too TirVEvp.ah* 
07 1 avlcav bcttiv yj fiam'AEia tgov ovpv.vav. 

4. Mavc aptot ot TGEv^ovvlEq' on avrot 

5. M ay.aptot ot TffoaEiq* qti avrot 
yJX'/jpovQu'/jaovGi tvjv yfjv. 

6. M ayaptot ot TTEtvmlEq ftnpav- 
hq tvjv diKatocrwyiir on avToi %op1aG- 

Versio Vulgatci. 

1. Videos autem turbas ascendit 
in montern, et cum sedisset accesse- 
runt ad eum discipuli ejus : 

2. Et aperiens os suum, docebat 
eos dicens : 

3. Beati pauperes spiritu ; quo- 
niam ipsorum est regnum coelo- 

4. Beati mites : quoniam ipsi 
possidebunt terram. 

5. Beati qui lugent; quoniam ipsi 

6. Beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt 
justitiam; quoniam ipsi salurabun- 


Codex Moscuensis . 

1 . I 8 fi>v < 5 e rovq o%kovq 7 av£&/} Etq to 
apoq • yooot v. adiravroq gov tov 9 ycpoGTjKQov 
avra ot paSvjlat avion. 

2. avotlqaq to gt opa avrov 7 
eI&cggy.ev avrovq Xsy oov. 

3. Mavc aptot oi Tsfrcc%oi to tstvev pan* 
on avrav egt tv J) fiaGtKzta rav avpavuv. 

4. Ma yaptoi ot TsrsvSfovvlEq* hi avrot 
GSapGLyX-fis-fi Govlat. 

5- M axaptot ot vrpaEtq* on avroi 
yk/jpovopvjGOVGt rvjv y'fjv. 

6. MavcajJi oi oi rrEtvmlEq you h$Q.'v7Eq 
tvjv ^tyatOGvyvjv* hi avroi xopraGO'/j- 

Codex Brixiensis , 

1. Vi dens autem turbas ascendit 
in montern, et cum sedisset access e- 
runt ad eum discipuli ejus ; 

2. Et aperiens os suum, docebat 
eos dicens : 

3. Beati pauperes spiritu : quoni- 
am ipsorum est regnum coelorum. 

4. Beati qui lugent ; quoniam ipsi 

5. Beati mansueti : quoniam ipsi 
hereditabunt terram. 

6. Beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt 
justitiam : quoniam ipsi saturabun- 

On these different classes of manuscripts in the Greek and Latin* 
Mr. Nolan remarks, that it must be evident, on the most casual 
inspection, that the manuscripts in both languages possess the same 
.text, though manifestly of different classes. “ They respectively 
possess that identity in the choice of terms and arrangement of the 
language, which is irreconcileable with the notion of their having 
descended from different archetypes. And though these classes, in 
either language, vary among themselves, yet, as the translation fol- 


Sect. III. § 1.] On Greek Manuscripts . 

lows the varieties of the original, the Greek and Latin consequently 
afford each other mutual confirmation. The different classes of 
text in the Greek and Latin translation, as thus coinciding, may be 
regarded as the conspiring testimony of those churches, which were 
appointed the witnesses and keepers of Holy Writ, to the existence 
of three species of text in the original and in the translation.” 1 

Having thus produced the testimony of the eastern and western 
churches to the existence of these classes, the learned inquirer pro- 
ceeds to ascertain the antiquity of the classes : which he effects by 
the Latin translation. 

c( As the existence of a translation necessarily implies the priority 
of the original from which it was formed ; this testimony may be 
directly referred to the close of the fourth century. The Vulgate 
must be clearly referred to that period, as it was then formed by 
St. Jerome; in its bare existence, of course, the correspondent an- 
tiquity of the Greek text, with which it agrees, is directly established. 
This version is, however, obviously less antient than that of the 
Verceli or Brescia manuscript; as they are of the old Italic transla- 
tion, while it properly constitutes the new. In the existence of 
the antient version, the antiquity of the original text with that 
which it corresponds is consequently established. The three classes 
of text, which correspond with the Vulgate and Old Italic Version, 
must be consequently referred to a period not less remote than the 
close of the fourth century.” - 

The system of classification being thus carried up as high as the 
fourth century, Mr. Nolan justifies it by the testimony of Jerome; 
for this learned father, who lived at that period, asserts the existence 
of three classes of text in the same age, which respectively prevailed 
in Egypt, Palestine, and Constantinople. The identity of these 
classes with the different classes of text which still exist in the Greek 
original and Latin translation 3 , our author then proceeds to esta- 
blish. And this he effects by means of the manuscripts which have 
been written, the versions which have been published, and the col- 
lations which have been made, in the different countries to which St, 
Jerome refers his classes; founding every part of his proofs on the 
testimony of Adler, Birch, Woidc, Hunter, and other critics who 
have analysed the text and versions of the New Testament, 

The result of this investigation is, that the three classes of text, 
which are discoverable in the Greek manuscripts, are nearly identical 
with the three editions, which existed in the age of Jerome; with 
which they are identified by their coincidence with the Latin trans- 
lation which existed in the age of that Christian lather. Of the Jirst 
class , the Codex Bezee or Cambridge manuscript, is an exemplar * it 
contains the text which Jerome refers to Egypt, and ascribes to 
Hesychius. Of the second class , the Codex Vaticanm, or Vatican 
manuscript, forms the exemplar, and contains the text which Jerome 
refers to Palestine, and ascribes to Eusebius; and of the third class, 

1 Nolan’s Inquiry, p 70. a Ibid. pp. 70, 71. 

3 Tp which is now to be added the Peschito or Old Syriac version. The identity 
above noticed Mr. Nolan purposes fully to illustrate, in a future edition of bis “ Inquiry,** 


Genei'al Observations 

[Part I. Ch. III. 

the Moscow manuscript, collated by Matthsei, and by him noted with 
the letter V. and the Harleian manuscript in the British Museum, 
No. 5684 *., noted G. by Griesbach, are the exemplars, and contain 
the text which Jerome attributes to Lucian, and refers to Constan- 
tinople. The result of Mr. Nolan’s long and elaborate discussion 
is, that, as the Occidental or Western, Alexandrine, and Byzantine 
texts (according to Griesbach’s system of recensions), respectively 
coincide with the Egyptian, Palestine, and Byzantine texts of Mr. N., 
we have only to substitute the term Egyptian for Western, and 
Palestine for Alexandrine, in order to ascertain the particular text 
of any manuscript which is to be referred to a peculiar class or edi- 
tion. “ The artifice of this substitution admits of this simple solu- 
tion : the Egyptian text was imported by Eusebius of Verceli into 
the West, and the Palestine text republished by Euthalius at Alex- 
andria, the Byzantine text having retained the place in which it was 
originally published by Lucianus. In a word, a manuscript which 
harmonises with the Codex Cantabrigiensis, must be referred to the 
first class, and will contain the text of Egypt. One which harmo- 
nises with the Vatican manuscript, must be referred to the second 
class, and will contain the text of Palestine. And one which har- 
monises with the Moscow manuscript, must be referred to the third 
class, and will contain the text of Constantinople. 1 

The advantages resulting from the systen/of recensions just de- 
veloped are twofold : — In the first place, itleadsHot only to a more 
adequate method of classification, but also to the discovery of a more 
antient text, by means of the priority of the old Italic Version to the 
New r or Vulgate Latin of Jerome. And, secondly, it coincides with 
the respective schemes of Dr. Griesbach and of M. Matthsei, and 
derives support from their different systems. It adopts the three 
classes of the former, with a slight variation merely in the name of 
the classes ; and, in ascertaining the genuine text, it attaches the same 
authority to the old Italic translation, which the same distinguished 
critic has ascribed to that version. It likewise agrees with the scheme 
of Matthsei, in giving the preference to the K<m^ Ex8o<n$, the Greek 
Vulgate or Byzantine text, over the Palestine and Egyptian ; but it 
supports the authority of this text on firmer grounds than the con- 
currence of the Greek manuscripts, “ Hence,” it is observed, that 
“ while it differs from the scheme of M. Matthsei, in building on the 
Old Italic Version, it differs from that of Dr. Griesbach, in distin- 
guishing the copies of this translation, which are free from the in- 
fluence of the Vulgate, from those which have been corrected since 
the times of Eusebius of Verceli, of Jerome, and Cassiodorus. And 
it affords a more satisfactory mode of disposing of the multitude of 
various leadings, than that suggested by the latter, who refers them 
to the intentional or accidental corruptions of transcribers; or by that of 
the former, who ascribes them to the correction of the original Greek 
by the Latin translation : as it traces them to the influence of the text 
which was published by Eusebius, at the command of Constantine.” 

Nolan’s Inquiry, pp. 105, 106. 


Sect. III. § 1.] On Greek Manuscripts. 

4. Widely different from all the preceding theories is the system 
of recensions proposed by the learned {Roman Catholic) Professor 
Hug-, of Fribourg, who affirms the existence of three recensions or 
editions, and divides the history of the sacred text of the New Tes- 
tament into three periods, viz. 

(1.) The First Period comprises the text of the New Testament, 
from the time when its several books were written to the third cen- 
tury. That text, according to the testimony of Clement of Alex- 
andria, Origen, Irenaeus, and other Fathers, was early the object 
of imprudent or rash alterations ; although their statements were 
greatly exaggerated, yet the fact is certain, that such alterations were 
actually made; and the text, thus altered, was, according to Hug, 
what is commonly termed KOINH EKA02I2, orth common edition. 
Though almost every where the same, this edition had two forms, a 
little different, one of which corresponds with Griesbach’s Western 
Recension, and the other with his special Asiatic Instruments, and 
particularly with the Peschito or Old Syriac version. 

(2.) Second Period . — The defects of the common edition having 
been perceived about the middle of the third century, three learned 
men, severally and independently, though nearly simultaneously, un- 
dertook the arduous task of purifying the text, and of restoring it 
to its first form, by the aid of manuscripts, viz. Origen in Pales- 
tine, Hesychius in Egypt, where he was a bishop, and Lucian, a 
priest at Antioch, in Syria. The work of Hesychius was generally 
received in Egypt, and became the source of the Alexandrine 
family : that of Lucian , which was better known, and has sometimes 
been termed the Editio Vidgata , or Lucia?ius y was introduced into 
divine worship in Syria, in Asia Minor, in Thrace, and at Constan- 
tinople ; and that of Origen, having been made in his old age, and 
left for publication by his pupils, was confined within Palestine, 
where it was soon superseded by the edition of Lucian, and in no 
long time was entirely lost. 

(3.) The Third Period of the history of the text of the New Tes- 
tament embraces the variations made therein, from the threefold 
recension in the third century, to our own time. 1 

5. The system proposed by Professor Hug has been much and 
deservedly admired for its ingenuity, and for the solution which it 
affords to a great number of difficulties. It has, however, been ma- 
terially modified by Dr. (now Professor) Scholz, a pupil of Plug’s, 
of whose views he is by no means a servile follower. 

Scholz has, in fact, proposed two systems of recensions. 

(1.) Theyfrs/ of these systems was communicated to the public 
in 1820' 2 , and was the result of his examination of forty-eight manu- 
scripts in the Royal Library at Paris; seventeen of which he coL 
lated entirely and with the utmost care, and nine of them had nevev 
before been examined by any person. In the opinion of Scholz, there 

1 Cellmer, Introduction au Nouv. Test. pp. 84 — 103. Hug’s Introd. to the New 
Testament, vol. i. pp. 134 — 231. 

- Cur® Critic® in Historian* Textus Evangeliorum, Coramentatiombus Duis exhibitsg 
a Joh. M, Augustino Scholz. Heidelberg®, 1820. 4to f 


General Observations 

[Part I. Ch. HI. 

is nothing which indicates the existence of the Origenian Recension; 
and the labours of Hesychius and of Lucian had no more influence 
on the history of the text than those of their predecessors. He 
professes carefully to have examined every thing concerning them in 
the antient writers of the church ; and he states that he has found 
nothing that could lead him to form a different idea. But, among 
the various instruments or manuscripts which he has compared, 
he thinks he has discovered vestiges of four distinct families ; viz. 
two African or rather Egyptian , one of which corresponds with the 
Alexandrine Recension of Griesbach, and the other, with his Occi- 
dental Recension; and two Asiatic , one of which is particularly 
deserving of that name, and corresponds with the special Asiatic 
instruments of Griesbach, and the other under the appellation of 
Byzantine , is the Constantinopolitan Recension. To these he added 
a fifth recension, which he denominated the Cyprian , because it con- 
tains that text which is exhibited in the Codex Cyprias , a manuscript 
of the eighth century brought from the isle of Cyprus (whence it 
derives its name), which is described in a subsequent page. By a 
comparison of the readings of the Codex Cyprius with the received 
text, and with the Alexandrine and Constantinopolitan Recensions 
in nearly one hundred instances, Professor Scholz has shown, that 
it very frequently coincides with the two last, sometimes agreeing with 
both, sometimes following the one or the other of them, and some- 
times holding a mean between them. In many instances it harmo- 
nises with but few manuscripts ; and in some cases its readings are 
peculiar to itself. On these accounts, he is of opinion that the Codex 
Cyprius exhibits aTamily which has sprung from a collation of vari- 
ous manuscripts, some of which owe their origin to Egypt, others to 
Asia, and others to Cyprus. 

The origin and history of the four African and Asiatic families 
above mentioned, are investigated at considerable length by Profes- 
sor Scholz, who proceeds to form an estimate of their respective 
critical merits. In the two African families he finds an extremely 
corrupted text; but the two Asiatic families are very superior to 
them, approaching much nearer to the original purity of the anlient 
text : and (which is a necessary consequence) they differ very little 
from each other ; they present a text much more fixed, more uni- 
form, and more generally approved. 

It is proper to add that, subsequently to Scholz’s publication of 
the preceding theory of recensions, Professor Plug, with a candour 
and modesty which reflect the highest honour upon him, announced 
that his pupil’s labours had led him to entertain some doubts con- 
cerning his own system ; and that he shall wait for the appearance 
of the critical edition of the New Testament which Scholz is prepar- 
ing, before he offers any reply to his theory. 

(2.) The theory of Prof. Scholz has been materially modified in 
consequence of the results obtained by him in his Biblical Re* 
searches in various parts of Europe and in Palestine ; and in which 
he goes far towards overturning the bases of the systems of recen- 
sions generally adopted in Germany. Of these details he has pub- 

.Sect. III. § LJ On Greek Manuscripts . 113 

lished an interesting account (in German 1 ), which does not admitof 
abridgment. It may, however, suffice here to state that from the 
differences which are sufficiently perceptible in the manuscripts and 
editions of the Greek Text of the New Testament, he concludes that 
these instruments naturally -divide themselves into two great classes, 
which are constantly the same throughout the books of the New Tes- 
tament. To the first of these classes belong all the editions and 
those numerous manuscripts, which were written within the limits of 
the patriarchate of Constantinople, or which were destined for litur- 
gical use: the second class comprises certain manuscripts written in 
the south of France, in Sicily, Egypt, and elsewhere. Transcribed, 
unquestionably, from copies which were valuable on account of 
their age and beauty, they were intended only to preserve the con- 
tents of those copies-: but, as they presented a different text from, 
that which was generally received, they could not be employed in 
divine service: hence they were for. the most part negligently written, 
with an incorrect orthography, and on leaves of vellum of different sizes 
and qualities. To this class, Prof. Scholz gives the appellation of 
Alexandrine , because its text originated in Alexandria. The other 
class he terms the Constantinopolitan , because its text was written 
within the precincts of the patriarchate of Constantinople: and he 
has endeavoured to show, by the actual collation of several hundred 
manuscripts (which is further confirmed by an induction of historical 
particulars), that the Constantinopolitan text is almost always faithful 
to the text now actually received, while the Alexandrine text varies 
from it in almost every verse. There are extant other manuscripts, 
which belong sometimes to one class, and sometimes to the other, 
and which also have some peculiar varieties : but repeated examin- 
ations of them enable him to state that they do not possess sufficient 
characters to constitute them distinct classes. ' 

In the subsequent part of his Biblico- Critical Travels, Professor 
Scholz proceeds to discuss the use of the terms, recensio and textus 
recensus , introduced by Griesbach, and formerly adopted by himself ; 
which terms he is of opinion are now no longer applicable. According 
to Scholz, the Constantinopolitan text never underwent any general 
revision; and the Alexandrine text, which was corrupted in the 
three first centuries, has since that time remained without any fur- 
ther alteration. 

Although Prof. Scholz’ s system of classing manuscripts seems, 
at first view, to contradict those of his predecessors in this depart- 
ment of sacred criticism, yet this contradiction is only apparent — not 
real : for he actually recognises the same facts as other critics, he only 
denies the importance of some, and explains others in a different way. 
With respect to the results, however, there is no difference. The 
grand, the final result of the principle of families, viz. the possibility 

1 Biblische Critische Reise, &c. L e. Biblico- Critical Travels in France, Switzerland, 
Italy, Palestine, and the Archipelago, in 1818-1821. pp„ 168 — 182. Leipzig, J823. 8vo. 
There is an interesting account of these Travels in the Biblioth&que Universelle (Litt^raturej 
for 1823, tom. sxiv. pp. 335 — 355. 

VOL,. II. I, 

114? Observations on Greek Manuscripts. [Part I. Ch. Ill, 

and certainty of the integrity of the sacred text is expressed more 
distinctly by Scholz than by any of his predecessors. Further, 
though not free from objections, this system appears generally to offer 
more than any other, a remarkable character of simplicity and uni- 
versality : it is less complicated, and also possesses a greater degree 
of probability, than those of Griesbach and Hug, and it is supported 
by researches which are truly learned and laborious. Although the 
absolute certainty of Scholz’s system can only be determined by the 
appearance of the critical edition of the Greek New Testament, which 
he is preparing for publication ; yet he is allowed to have done much 
towards demonstrating the great pre-eminence of the Asiatic or Con- 
stantinopolitan text over the African or Alexandrine text, and conse- 
quently the real merit of the present received text of the New Tes- 
tament. But, whatever may be the result of Scholz’s projected 
edition, (and towards which six hundred manuscripts * , unknown to 
Griesbach, have lent their aid,) the critical labours of Dr. ‘Griesbach 
will not cease to possess high claims to the grateful attention of every 
student of sacred literature. 

As a general and correct index to the great body of Greek manu- 
scripts, they are an invaluable treasure to the scholar, and a necessary 
acquisition to the divine: at the same time, his collection of various 
readings is admirably calculated to satisfy our minds on a point of the 
highest moment, — the integrity of the Christian Records. Through 
the long interval of seventeen hundred years, — amidst the collision 
of parties, — the opposition of enemies, — and the desolations of time, 

* — they remain the same as holy men read them in the primitive ages of 
Christianity. A very minute examination of manuscripts, versions, 
and fathers, proves the inviolability of the Christian Scriptures. 
“ They all coincide in exhibiting the same Gospels, Acts, and Epistles; 
and among all the copies of them which have been preserved, there 
is not one which dissents from the rest either in the doctrines or pre- 
cepts, which constitute Christianity. They all contain the same 
doctrines and precepts. For the knowledge of this fact, we are in- 
debted to such men as Griesbach, whose zealous and persevering 
labours to put us in possession of it intitle them to our grateful 
remembrance. To the superficial, and to the novice, in theology, 
the long periods of life, and the patient investigation, which have been 
applied to critical investigation, may appear as mere waste, or, at the 
best, as only amusing employments but to the serious inquirer, who, 
from his own conviction, can declare that he is not following cun- 
ningly devised fables, the time, the talents, and the learning, which 
have been devoted to critical collation, will be accounted as well ex- 
pended, for the result which they have accomplished. The real theo- 
logian is satisfied from his own examination, that the accumulation of 
many thousands of various readings, obtained at the expense of immense 
critical labour, does not affect a single sentiment in the whole New 
Testament. And thus is criticism, — which some despise, and others 
neglect, found to be one of those un decaying columns, by which 
the i mperishable structure of Christian Truth is supported.” i 

1 Eclectic Be view, vol. v. parti, p. 189. •— * - 


Sect. III. § 2.J Account of Greek Manuscripts. 

VI. From the coincidence observed between many Greek manu- 
scripts and the Vulgate, or some other Latin version, a suspicion arose 
in the minds of several eminent critics, that the Greek text had been 
altered throughout to the Latin ; and it has been asserted that at the 
council of Florence, (held in 1439 with the view of establishing an 
union between the Greek and Latin churches,) a resolution was 
formed, that the Greeks should alter their manuscripts from the Latin. 
This has been termed by the learned, Fcedus cum Greets. The sus- 
picion, concerning the altering of the Greek text, seems to have been 
first suggested by Erasmus, but it does not appear that he supposed 
the alterations were made before the fifteenth century : so that the 
charge of Latinising the manuscripts did not (at least in his notion of it) 
extend to the original writers of the manuscript, or as they are called, 
the writers a primd manu; since it affected only the writers a secunda 
ma?iu , , or subsequent interpolators. The accusation was adopted and 
extended by Father Simon and Dr, Mill, and especially by Wetstein. 
Bengal expressed some doubts concerning it ; and it was formally 
questioned by Sender, Griesbach, and Woide. The reasonings of 
the two last-mentioned critics convinced Michaelis (who had formerly 
agreed with Erasmus) that the charge of Latinising was unfounded ; 
and in the fourth edition of his Introduction to the New Testament 
(the edition translated by Bishop Marsh), with a candour of which 
there are too few examples, Michaelis totally abandoned his first 
opinion, and expressed his opinion that the pretended agreement in 
the Fcedus cum Greeds is a mere conjecture of Erasmus, to which he 
had recourse as a refuge in a matter of controversy. Carrying the 
proof to its utmost length, it only shows that the Latin translations 
and the Greek copies were made from the same exemplars ; which 
rather proves the antiquity of the Latin translations, than the cor- 
ruption of the Greek copies. It is further worthy of remark, that 
Jerome corrected the Latin from the Greek, a circumstance which is 
known in every part of the Western Church. Now, as Michaelis justly 
observes, when it was known that the learned father had made the 
Greek text the basis of his alterations in the Latin translation, it is 
scarcely to be imagined that the transcribers of the Western Church ' 
would alter the Greek by the Latin ; and it is still less probable, that 
those of the Eastern Church would act in this manner. 1 


I. The Alexandrian Manuscript. — II. The Vatican Manuscript. 

OF the few manuscripts known to be extant, which contain the 
Greek Scriptures, (that is, the Old Testament, according to the Scp- 
tuagint Version, and the New Testament,) there are two which pre- 
eminently demand the attention of the biblical student for their 

1 Michaelis's Introduction, vol. ii. parti, pp. 163— 173. Butler’s Horae Bibliea;, 
vol. i. p, I S. 

116 Account of Greek Manuscripts [Parti. Ch. Ill, 

antiquity and intrinsic value, viz. The Alexandrian manuscript, which 
is preserved in the British Museum, and the Vatican .manuscript, 
deposited in the library of the Vatican Palace at Rome. 

I. The Codex Alexandrinus, or Alexandrian Manuscript, which 
is noted by the letter A. in Wetstein’s and Griesbach’s critical edi- 
tions .of the New Testament, consists of four folio volumes ; the three 
first contain the whole of the Old Testament, together with the apo- 
cryphal boohs, and the fourth comprises the New Testament, the 
first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, and the apocryphal Psalms 
ascribed to Solomon. In the New Testament there is wanting the 
beginning as far as Matt. xxv. 6. o vuptpiog ep^eroti ; likewise from 
John vi. 50. to viii. 52. and from 2 Cor. iv. 13. to xii. 7- The Psalms 
are preceded by the epistle of Athanasius to Marcellinus, and fol- 
lowed by a catalogue, containing those which are to be used in prayer 
for each hour, both of the day and of the night ; also by fourteen 
hymns, partly apocryphal, partly biblical, the eleventh of which 
is the hymn of . the Virgin Mary, usually termed the Magnificat, 
(Luke i. 46 — 55.) and here intitled 7rpocrev%Yi Mapidg rr\$ ©eoro^ou, 
or, the prayer of Mary the mother of God: the arguments of Eu- 
sebius are annexed to the Psalms, and his canons to the Gospels. 
This manuscript is now preserved in the British Museum, where 
it was deposited in 1753. It was sent as a present to King 
Charles I. from Cyrillus Lucaris, a native of Crete, and patriarch of 
Constantinople, by Sir Thomas Rowe, ambassador from England to 
the Grand Seignior, in the year 1628. Cyrillus“brought it with him 
from Alexandria, where, probably, it was written. In a schedule 
annexed to it, he gives this account,* that it was written, according to 
tradition, by Thecla, a noble Egyptian lady, about thirteen hundred 
years ago, a little after the council of Nice. He adds, that the name of 
Thecla, at the end of the book, was erased ; but that this was the case 
with other books of the Christians, after Christianity was extinguished 
in Egypt by the Mohammedans : and that recent tradition records 
the fact of the laceration .and erasure of Theda’s name. The pro- 
prietor of thi§ manuscript, before it came into the hands of Cyrillus 
Lucaris, had written an Arabic subscription, expressing that this book 
was said to have been written with the pen of Thecla the Martyr. 

Various disputes have arisen with regard to the place whence it 
was brought, and where it was written, to its antiquity, and of course 
to its real value. Some critics have bestowed upon it the highest 
commendation, whilst it has been equally depreciated by others. Of 
its most strenuous adversaries, Wetstein seems to have been the 
principal. The place from which it was sent to England was, without 
doubt, Alexandria, and lienee it has been called Codex Alexandrinus . 

As to the place where it was written, there is a considerable differ- 
ence of opinion Mattbmus Muttis, who was a contemporary, friend, 
and deacon of Cyrillus, and who afterwards instructed in the Greek 
language John Rudolph Wetstein, uncle of the celebrated editor of 
the Greek Testament, bears testimony, in a letter written to Martin 
JBogctan, a physician m Berne, dated January 14. 1664, that it had 
been brought from one of the twenty-two monasteries in Mount 
Athos, which the Turks never destroyed, but allowed to continue 

Sect. III. $ 2.] Containing the Old and New Testaments . 117 

upon the payment of tribute. Dr. Woide endeavours to weaken the 
evidence of Muttis, and to render the testimony of the elder Wetstein 
suspicious: but Spohn 1 shows that the objections of Woide are un- 
grounded. Allowing their reality* we cannot infer that Cyrillus found 
this manuscript in Alexandria. Before he went to Alexandria he 
spent some time on Mount Athos, the repository and manufactory of 
manuscripts of the New Testament, whence a great number have been 
brought into the West of Europe, and a still greater number, has 
been sent to Moscow. It is therefore probable, independently of the 
evidence of Muttis, that Cyrillus procured it there either by purchase 
or by present, took it with him to Alexandria, and brought it thence 
on his return to Constantinople. But the question recurs, where was 
this copy written? The Arabic subscription above cited, clearly 
proves, that it had been in Egypt at some period or other, before it 
fell into the hands of Cyrillus. This subscription shows that it once 
belonged to an Egyptian, or that during some time it was preserved 
in Egypt, where Arabic has been spoken since the seventh century. 
Besides, it is well known that a great number of manuscripts of the 
Greek Bible have been written in Egypt. Woide has also pointed 
out a remarkable coincidence between the Codex Alexandrinus and 
the writings of the Copts. Michaelis alleges another circumstance 
as a probable argument of its having been written in Egypt. In 
Ezekiel xxvii. IB. both in the Hebrew and Greek text, the Tyrians, 
are said to have fetched their wine from Chelbon, or, according to- 
Bochart, Chalybon. But as Chalybon, though celebrated for its wine, 
was unknown to the writer of this manuscript, he has altered it by a 
fanciful conjecture to omv sx ^e/Epcov, wine from Hebron. This alter- 
ation was probably made by an Egyptian copyist, because Egypt was 
formerly supplied with wine from Hebron. The subscription before 
mentioned ascribes the writing of it to Thecla, an Egyptian lady of 
high rank, who could not have been, as Michaelis supposes, the mar- 
tvress Thecla, placed in the time of St. Paul : but Woide replies, 
that a distinction must be made between Thecla martyr, and Thecla 
proto-martyr. With regard to these subscriptions we may observe, 
with Bishop Marsh, that the true state of the case appears to be as 
follows : “ Some centuries after the Codex Alexandrinus had been 
written, and the Greek subscriptions, and perhaps those other parts 
where it is more defective, already lost, it fell into the hands of a 
Christian inhabitant of Egypt, who, not finding the usual Greek sub- 
scription of the copyist, added in Arabic, his native language, the 
tradition, either true or false, which had been preserved in the family 
or families to which the manuscript had belonged, 4 Memorant hune 
codicem scriptum esse calamo Theclae martyrise In the 1 7th century, 
when oral tradition respecting this manuscript had probably ceased, 
it became the property of Cyrillus Lucaris : but whether in Alex- 
andria, or Mount Athos, is of no importance to the present inquiry. 
On examining the manuscript, he finds that the Greek subscription 

1 Caroli Godofredi Woidii Notitia Codicis Alexandria^ cum variis ejus lectionibua 
omnibus. Recudendum curavit, notasque adjecit Gottlieb Leberecht Spohn, pp. 10 — 13, 
(8 vo. Lipsi®, 1790 .) 

118 Account of Greek Manuscripts [Part I. Ch. III. 

is lost, but that there is a tradition recorded in Arabic by a former 
proprietor, which simply related that it was written by one Theda a 
martyress, which is what he means by c memoria et traditio recens.’ 
Taking therefore upon trust, that one Thecla a martyress was really 
the copyist, he consults the annals of the church to discover in what 
age and country a person of this name and character existed; finds 
that an Egyptian lady of rank, called Thecla, suffered martyrdom 
between the time of holding the council of Nicaea and the close of the 
fourth century; and concludes, without further ceremony, that she 
was the very identical copyist. Not satisfied with this discovery, he 
attempts to account for the loss of the 'Greek subscription, and ascribes 
it to the malice of the Saracens ; being weak enough to believe that 
the enemies of Christianity would exert their vengeance on the name 
of a poor transcriber, and leave the four folio volumes themselves 
unhurt” Dr. Woide, who transcribed and published this manu- 
script, and must be better acquainted with it than any other person, 
asserts, that it was written by two different copyists ; for he observed 
a difference in the ink, and, which is of greater moment, even in 
the strokes of the letters. The conjecture of Oudin, adopted by 
Wetstein, that the manuscript was written by an Acoemet is, in the 
judgment of Michaelis, worthy of attention and he addiSj that this 
conjecture does not contradict the account that Thecla was the 
copyist, since there were not only monks but nuns of this order. 

The antiquity of this manuscript has also been the subject of con- 
troversy. Grabe and Schulze think that it might have been written 
before the end of the fourth century, which, says Michaelis, is the 
very utmost period that can be allowed, because it contains the 
epistles of Athanasius. Oudin places it in the tenth century. Wetstein 
refers it to the fifth, and supposes that it was one of the manuscripts 
collected at Alexandria in 615, for the Syriac version. Dr. Sender 
refers it to the seventh century. Monttaucon' 2 is of opinion, that 
neither the Codex Alexandrinus, nor any Greek manuscript, can be 
said with great probability to be much prior to the sixth century. 
Michaelis apprehends, that this manuscript was written after Arabic 
was become the native language of the Egyptians, that is, one, or 
rather two centuries after Alexandria was taken by the Saracens, 
which happened in the year 640, because the transcriber frequently 
confounds M and B, which is often done in the Arabic ; and he 
concludes, that it is not more antient than the eighth century. 
Woide, after a great display of learning, with which he examines 
the evidence lor the antiquity of the Codex Alexandrinus, concludes, 
that it was written between the middle and the end of the fourth 

Ihe Accemets were a class of monks in the antient church, who flourished, particu- 
larly jn the East, during the fifth century. They were so called, because they had divine 
service performed, without interruption, in their churches. They divided themselves 
into three bodies, each of which officiated in turn, and relieved the others, so that their 
churches were never silent, either night or day. Wetstein adopts the opinion of Casimir 
Oudin, that the Codex Alexandrinus was written by an Accomet, because it contains a 
catalogue of the psalms that were to be sung at every hour both of the day and night. 
•Proleg. in Nov. Test. vol. i. p. 10. 

9 Palscog, Grcec. p. 185. 


Sect. III. § 2.] Containing the Old and New Testaments . 

century. It cannot be allowed a greater antiquity, because it has 
not only the titKoi or xeQakuta majora, but the xEtyukoua minora, or 
Ammonian sections, accompanied with the references to the canons 
of Eusebius. Woide’s arguments have been objected to by Spohn. 1 
Some of the principal arguments advanced by those who refer this 
manuscript to the fourth or fifth centuries are the following : the 
epistles of Saint Paul are not divided into chapters like the gospels, 
though this division took place so early as 396, when to each chapter 
was prefixed a superscription. The Codex Alexandrinus has the 
epistles of Clement of Rome ; but these were forbidden to be read 
in the churches, by the council of Laodicea, in 364, and that of 
Carthage, in 419. Hence Schulze has inferred, that it was written 
before the year 364; and he produces a new argument for its anti- 
quity, deduced from the last of the fourteen hymns found in it after 
the psalms, which is superscribed v^vog s$tvog 9 and is called the grand 
doxology ; for this hymn has not the clause ay tog o Qsog, ayiog to-^vpog, 
aytog uQavaTog, eksycrov tj pag, which was used between the years 434 
and 446; and therefore the manuscript must have been written be- 
fore this time. Wetstein thinks that it must have been written before 
the time of Jerome, because the Greek text of this manuscript was 
altered from the old Italic. He adds, that the transcriber was igno- 
rant that the Arabs were called Hagarenes, because he has written 
(1 Chron. v. 20.) ayopaioi for Ayapatot. Others allege that ayopaioi 
is a mere erratum : because A yapaioov occurs in the preceding verse, 
Ayaptrrjg in 1 Chron, xxvii. 31. and A yapyvoi in Psal. lxxxii. 7. These 
arguments, says Michaelis, afford no certainty, because the Codex 
Alexandrinus must have been copied from a still more antient ma- 
nuscript; and if this were faithfully copied, the arguments apply 
rather to this than to the Alexandrian manuscript itself. It is the 
hand-writing alone, or the formation of the letters, with the want of 
accents, which can lead to any probable decision. The arguments 
alleged to prove that it is not so antient as the fourth century, are 
the following. Dr. Sender thinks, that the epistle of Athanasius, 
on the value and excellency of the Psalms, w T ould hardly have been 
prefixed to them during his life. But it ought to be recollected, 
that Athanasius had many warm and strenuous advocates. From 
this epistle Oudin has attempted to deduce an argument, that the 
manuscript was written in the tenth century. This epistle, he says, 
is spurious, and could not have been forged during the life of Atha- 
nasius, and the tenth century was fertile in spurious productions. 
Again, the Virgin Mary, in the superscription of the Song of the 
Blessed Virgin, is styled tieoloxog, a name which Wetstein says be- 
trays the fifth century. Further, from the probable conjecture, 
that this manuscript was written by one of the order of the Acoe- 
metse, Oudin concludes against its antiquity ; but Wetstein contents 
himself with asserting, that it could not have been written before 
the fifth century, because Alexander, who founded this order, lived - 
about the year 420. From this statement, pursued more at large, 

1 Pp, 42—109. of his edition of Woide’s Notitia _Codicis_Alexandrmi» 

x 4 


Account of Greek Manuscripts [Part I, Ch. III. 

Michaelis deduces a reason for paying less regard to the Codex 
Alexandrinus than many eminent critics have done, and for the pre- 
ference that is due, in many respects, to antient versions, before 
any single manuscript, because the antiquity of the former, which is 
in general greater than that of the latter, can be determined with 
more precision. 

The value of this manuscript has been differently appreciated by 
different writers. Wetstein, though he denotes it by A, the first 
letter of the alphabet, is no great admirer of it, nor docs Michaelis 
estimate it highly, either on account of its internal excellence or the 
value of its readings. The .principal charge which has been pro- 
duced against the Alexandrian manuscript, and which has been 
strongly urged by Wetstein, is its having been altered from the 
Latin version. It is incredible, says Michaelis, who once agreed 
in opinion with Wetstein, but found occasion to alter his sentiments, 
that a transcriber who lived in Egypt, should have altered the 
Greek text from a -Latin version, because Egypt belonged to the 
Greek diocese, and Latin was not understood there. On this sub- 
ject Woide has eminently displayed his critical abilities, and ably 
defended the Greek manuscripts in general, and the Codex Alex- 
andrinus in particular, from the charge of having been corrupted 
from the Latin. Griesbach concurs with Woide 1 , and both have 
contributed to confirm Michaelis in his new opinion. If this ma- 
nuscript has been corrupted from a version, it is more reasonable 
to suspect the Coptic, the version of the country in which it was 
written. Between this manuscript and both the Coptic and Syriac 
versions, there is a remarkable coincidence. Griesbach has ob- 
served, that this manuscript follows three different editions: the 
Byzantine in the Gospels, the Western edition in the Acts of the 
Apostles, and the Catholic epistles, which form the middle division 
of this manuscript, and the Alexandrine in the epistles of Saint 
Paul. The transcriber, if this assertion be true, must have copied 
the three parts of the Greek Testament from three different manu- 
scripts of three different editions. It is observable, that the read- 
ings of the Codex Alexandrinus coincide very frequently not only 
with the Coptic and the old Syriac, but with the new Syriac and 
the Ethiopic ; and this circumstance favours the hypothesis, that 
this manuscript was written in Egypt, because the new Syriac 
version having been collated with Egyptian manuscripts of the 
Greek Testament, and the Ethiopic version being taken imme- 
diately from them, have necessarily the readings of the Alexandrine 

The Alexandrian manuscript is written in uncial -or capital letters, 
without any accents or marks of aspiration, but with a few abbre- 
viations nearly similar to those already noticed 2 , and also with some 
others which are described by Dr. Woide 3 , who has likewise ex- 

s Tn a! p S J mb ? la l. Cr J tica :’ ,, , v ol*. i - PP* HO-117. a See pp. 98, 99. supra. 

§§ 27—S4 PrefaCe 10 his fac " slmlle of the Alexandrian manuscript of the New Testament, 


Sect. III. § 2.] Containing the Old and New Testaments , 

A fac-simile of the Codex Alexandrinus, containing the New 
Testament, was published in folio by the late Dr. Woide, assistant 
librarian of the British Museum, with types cast for the purpose, 
line for line, without intervals between the words, precisely as in the 
original. 1 The following specimen will convey to the reader an idea 
of this most precious manuscript. 

John i. 1 — 7. 





peicxvrovere NeTOOYxeeN ■ 



eicivixprvpixK! iNixrvixpxvpN 
C l iTTe P 1 T0Y(j)CDT'0 C INXTTXN 


For this stereotype specimen we are indebted to the Rev. EL 
Baber, one of the librarians of the British Museum, who kindly 
favoured us with the use of the Alexandrian types, with which he 
printed the Codex Alexandrinus.' 2 For the gratification of the 
English reader, the following extract is subjoined, comprising the 
first seven verses of Saint John’s Gospel, rendered rather more liter- 
ally than the idiom of our language will admit, in order to convey 
an exact idea of the original Greek (above given) of the Alexandrian 

i See a notice of Dr. Woide’s publication, in the Appendix to this volume, p. 19. 

« See an account of this magnificent publication in the Appendix to this volume, pp.38, 

39, The reader, who may be desirous of further information concerning the Alexandrian 

manuscript, is referred to Dr, Grabe’s prolegomena to his edition of the Greek Septua- 
gint, and also to the prolegomena of Dr. Woide already cited, and to those of Dr. Mill 
and Wetstein, prefixed to their editions of the New Testament. See also Michaelis’s 
Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii. parti, pp. 186 — 209*, and Bishop Marsh’s 
notes in partii. pp.648 — 660., and Hug's Introduction to the New Test. vol. i. pp. 268 
—273. Dr, Lardner has given the table of contents of this manuscript in his Credibility 
of the Gospel History, partii. chap. 147. (Works, 8vo. vol.y. pp. 253— 256. ; 4to. 
vol. iv. pp. 44-— 46.) 


Account of Greek Manuscripts [Part I. Ch.III. 

John i. 1 — 7. 









II. The Codex Vaticanus, No. 1209., which Wetstein and 
Griesbach have both noted with the letter B, contests the palm of 
antiquity with the Alexandrian manuscript. No fac-simile of it 
has ever been published. The Roman edition of the Septuamnt, 
printed in 1590, professes to exhibit the text of this manuscript; 
j and in the preface to that edition it is stated to have been written 
' before the year 387, i. e. towards the close of the fourth century : 
Montfaucon and Blanchini refer it to the fifth or sixth century," 
and Dupin to the seventh century. Professor Hug has endea- 
voured to show that it was written in the early part of the fourth 
century; but, from the omission of the Eusebian and 

titAoi, Bishop Marsh concludes with great probability that it was 
written before the close of the fifth century. The Vatican manu- 
script is written on parchment or vellum, in uncial or capital letters 
in three columns on each page, all of which are of the same size’ 
except at the beginning of a book, and without any divisions of 
chapters, verses, or words, but with accents and spirits. The shape 
of the letters, and colour of the ink, prove that it was written 
throughout by one and the same careful copyist. The abbrevi- 
ations are few, being confined chiefly to those words which are in 
general abbreviated, such as ©C, KC, IC, XC, for © e0f , Kw«oe, 
Vovc, Xfis-ofe God, Lord, Jesus, Christ. Originally this manuscript 
contained the entire Greek Bible, including both the Old and New 
Testaments ; in which respect it resembles none so much as the 
Codex Alexandrinus, though no two manuscripts vary more in 
their readings. The Old Testament wants the first forty-six chap- 
ters of Genesis, and thirty-two psalms, viz. from to cxxxvii. 
inclusive ; and the New Testament wants the latter part of the epistle 
to the Hebrews, viz. all after chapter ix. verse 14*. and also Saint 
Pan s other epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, and the 
whole Book of Revelation. It appears, however, that this last 
book, as well as the latter part of the epistle to the Hebrews, has 


Sect. III. § 2.] Containing the Old and Nm Testaments. 

been supplied by a modern hand in the fifteenth century, and, it is 
said, from some manuscript that had formerly belonged to Cardi- 
nal Bessarion. In many places the faded letters have also been 
retouched by a modern but careful hand : and when the person 
who made these amendments (whom Michaelis pronounces to have 
been a man of learning) found various readings in other manuscripts 
he has introduced them into the Codex Vaticanus, but has still 
preserved the original text ; and in some few instances he has ven- 
tured to erase with a penknife. Various defects, both in ortho- 
graphy and language, indicate that this manuscript was executed 
by an Egyptian copyist. Instead of J/q, &c. Tie has written 

which occurs only in Coptic or 
Grseco-coptic MSS. He has also written sinew for sIttov, as may be 
seen in the celebrated Rosetta inscription ; eTSav, sW-ay, e/cnjASav, 
«ysiXc4To, and diepapTupuTo, as in the inscription of the Theban Mem- 
non ; and ewpaxuv and ysyoyav, as the Alexandrians wi'Ote according 
to the testimony of Sextus Empiricus. These peculiarities show 
that the Codex Vaticanus exhibits the Egyptian text, subsequent to 
the third century, according to the Alexandrine Recension of Gries- 
bach, and the Hesychian Recension of Hug. 

It has been supposed that this manuscript was collated by the 
editors of the Complutensian Polyglott, and even that this edition 
was almost entirely taken from it : but Bishop Marsh has shown by 
actual comparison that this was not the case. 

The Vatican manuscript has been repeatedly collated by various 
eminent critics, from whose extracts Wetstein collected numerous 
various readings : but the latest and best collation is that by Professor 
Birch, of Copenhagen, in 1781. Although the antiquity of the Vatican 
manuscript is indisputable, it is by no means, easy to determine be- 
tween its comparative value and that of the Alexandrian manuscript; 
nor is there any absolute and universal standard by which their 
several excellencies may be estimated. With regard to the Old 
Testament, if any Greek manuscript were now extant, containing an 
exact copy of the several books as they were originally translated, 
such manuscript would be perfect, and, consequently, the most valu- 
able. The nearer any copy comes to this perfection, the more valu- 
able it must be, and vice versci. In its present state the Hebrew 
Text cannot determine fully the value of these MSS. in their rela- 
tion to one another; and yet as that text receives great assistance 
from both, it proves that both deserve our highest regard. It is 
worthy of remark, that neither of them has the asterisks of Origen, 
though both of them were transcribed in the fifth century; which, 
Dr. Kennicott observes l , is one proof that they were not taken 
either mediately or immediately from the Hexapla. The Vatican 
and Alexandrian manuscripts differ from each other in the Old Tes- 
tament chiefly in this ; — that, as they contain books, which have been 
corrected by different persons, upon different principles ; and as they 
differ greatly in some places in their interpolations, — so they contain 
many words which were either derived from different Greek ver- 

1 TY„ 

A 1 <n A 1 H 


Account of Greek Manuscripts, [Part I. Ch. IIL 

sions 5 or else were translated by one or both of the transcribers 
themselves from the Hebrew text, which was consulted by them at 
the time of transcribing. 

On the ground of its internal excellence, Michaelis preferred the 
Vatican manuscript (for the New Testament) to the Codex Alcxan- 
drinus. If, however, that manuscript be most respectable which 
comes the nearest to Origen’s Hexaplar copy of the Septuagint, the 
Alexandrian manuscript seems to claim that merit in preference to 
its rival : but if it be thought a matter of superior honour to approach 
nearer the old Greek version, uncorrected by Origen, that merit seems 
to be due to the Vatican. 1 

The accompanying plate exhibits a specimen 'of the Vatican ma- 
nuscript from a fac-simile traced in the year 17Q1« for l)r, Grabc, 
editor of the celebrated edition of the Septuagint, which is noticed in 
a subsequent part of this work. The author has reason to believe 
that it is the most faithful fac-simile ever executed of this MS. It 
was made by signor Zacagni, at that time principal keeper of the 
Vatican library, and is now preserved among ‘Dri Griabu’s manu- 
scripts in the Bodleian library at Oxford. This fac-simile has been 
most carefully and accurately copied, under the direction of the (lev. 
Dr. Bandinel, the keeper of that noble repository of literature, to 
whom the author now offers his acknowledgments for his kind assist- 
ance on this occasion. The passage represented in our engraving 
contains the first three verses of the first chapter of the prophet 
Ezekiel, of which the following is a literal English version : 


N nowitgametopassintheti-iik 






















1 Sighot Zacagni’s Letter to Dr. Grabe, dated Rome/ Nov. 29. 1704, in Dr. Keimi- 
cott'a Diss.ii. pp. 408— -411. Michaelis, vol. ii. parti, pp. 841— -850. Fartii. pp. 810—* 
820. Hug’s Introd. to the New Test, vol, i. pp, 262 272. 

/v. \n. 

-r 7 


K^ie re^e to e m r ca ; -7 1 a 

KO C T~OJ£ TG l re TAf-r u> 

M MN I PGM nTN TOYM fiwoc. 

tnca/xm aa.oj cj ac er> /tt 
hot amO YT oyxo B trfkM 

KAi 6 »AONopA.cejcernff«- 
£JX7\AAAaoC/A.C TOT^Atf 

m e toao ro CKyn po c /€ 


JEfAp KAJ€reN€TO€rT€M€ 

BOppAK NC«^> eXHHefA, 

. • V, ' 

v *v r. r/.t/ // 7 / 7 

( > y/',/ r. I r. / ?rl .///: ' IfeOET 
v/^- //(''?' / 

' ’ ^ y V'" / ' / / . . 

r */’ V; ?//{'*.' , ft//*** t , f ft-* 

Fac-Slwie •■'/ f -■ ■ 

K4TICX,Vl r S ///tf/f '/l L/t.' //'t'F /y *./y - 


... uvt</ 

/ y. 

4; ' ///7^,/jruAF /// FODIEIAX LIBRARY 


Sect. III. § 3.] Containing the Septuagint Vei'sion. 

No fac-simile edition (like that of the Alexandrian New Testament 
edited by Dr. Woide, and of the Old Testament by the Rev. 
H. H. Baber) has ever been executed of the precious Vatican manu- 
script. During the pontificate of Pius VI. the Abate Spoletti con- 
templated the publication of it, for which purpose he delivered a 
memorial to the Pope. No public permission was ever given : and 
though the Pontiff’s private judgment was not unfavourable to the 
undertaking, yet, as his indulgence would have been no security 
against the° vengeance of the inquisition, Spoletti was obliged to 
abandon his design. 1 It is, however, but just to add, that no ob- 
stacles were thrown in the way of the collation of manuscripts in the 
Vatican, for Dr. Holmes’s critical edition of the Septuagint version, 
of which some account will be found in pp. 37, 38. of the Appendix to 
this volume. 


I. The Codex Cottonianus II. The Codex Sarravianus III. The 

' Codex Colbertinus. — IV. The Codex Ccesareus, Argenteus, or Argenteo- 

Purpureus. V. The Codex Ambrosianus. — VI. The Codex Coislinianus. 

yil. 2 j ie Codex Basiliano-V aticanus. — VIII. The Codex Turieensis. 

IT is not precisely known what number of manuscripts of the 
Greek version of the Old Testament are extant. The highest num- 
ber of those collated by the late Rev. Dr. Holmes, for his splendid 
edition of this version, is one hundred and thirty-five. Nine of them 
are described, as being written in uncial characters, and as having 
furnished him with the most important of the various readings, with 
which his first volume is enriched : besides these he has noticed sixfy- 
three others, written in cursive or small characters, and which have 
likewise furnished him with various lections. Of these manuscripts 
the following are more particularly worthy of notice, on account of 

their rarity and value. 2 _ 

I. The Codex Cottonianus is not only the most antient but tne 
most correct manuscript that is extant. It was originally brought 
from Philippi by two Greek bishops, who presented it to King Henry 
VIII. whom they informed that tradition reported it to have been the 
identical copy, which had belonged to the celebrated Origen, who 
lived in the former half of the third century. Queen Elizabeth gave 
it to Sir John Fortescue, her preceptor in Greek, who, desirous of 
preserving it for posterity, placed it in the Cottonian library. This 
precious manuscript was almost destroyed by the calamitous fire 
which consumed Cotton House at Westminster, in the year '1731. 
Eighteen fragments are all that now remain, and of these, both the 
leaves, and consequently the writing in a just proportion, are con- 

i Michaelis, vol. ii. parti, p. I HI., partii. pp, 644, 64.5. _ . 

4 Our descriptions are chieflv abridged from Dr. Holmes s Prasfatio ad Pentateuchum, 
cap. ii. prefixed to the first volume of his critical edition of the Septuagint version pub- 
lished at Oxford, in 179H, folio. 

j2 q Account of Manuscripts [Part I. Ch. III. 

tracted into a less compass ; so that what were large are now small capi- 
tals. These fragments are at present deposited in the British Museum. 1 

In its original state, the Codex Cottonianus contained one hundred 
and sixty-five leaves, in the quarto size ; it is written on vellum, in 
uncial characters, the line running along the whole’ width of the page, 
and each line consisting, in general, of twenty-seven, rarely of thirty 
letters. These letters are almost every where of the same length, 
excepting that at the end of a line they are occasionally somewhat 
less, and in some instances nre interlined or written over. the line. 
Like all other very antient manuscripts, it has no accents or spirits, 
nor any distinction of words, verses, or chapters. The words are, 
for the* most part, written at full length, with the ex ceptio n of the 

well known and frequent abbreviations of KC, KN, ©C, ©N, for 
Kupiof and Kupiov, Lord, and ©soj, ©eov, God. Certain consonants, 
vowels, and diphthongs are also interchanged. 0 The coherence of 
the Greek Text is very close, except where it is divided, by the inter- 
position of the very curious paintings or illuminations with which this 
manuscript is decorated. These pictures were two hundred and fifty 
in number, and consist of compositions within square frames, of one 
or of several figures,, in general not exceeding two filches in height ; 
and these frames, Which are four inches square, .att , Occasionally di- 
vided into two compartinents. The heads are p,erhaps fpo large, but 
the attitudes and draperies have considerable merit: aria they are by 
competent judges preferred to the miniatures that adorn the Vienna 
manuscript, which is noticed in pp. 128, 129 . infra. Twenty-one 
fragments of these illuminations were engraved, in 1744, on two large 
folio plates, at the expense of the Society of Antiquaries of London. 
It is observed by Mr. Planta, the present principal librarian of the 
British Museum, that more fragments must have been preserved 
than the eighteen which now remain; because none of those en- 

? raved are now to be met with. s On an examination of the Codex 
Cottonian us, with a view to take a fac-simile of some one of its frag- 
ments for this wotkj^bey were found in a nearly pulverised mid car- 
bonised state, so that 1 * no accurate copy could be made. The annexed 
engraving therefore is copied from that of the Antiquarian Society. 4 
The subject on tRs right-hand of Plate II. is Jacob delivering his son 
Benjamin to his' brethren, that they may go a second time into Egypt, 
and buy corn for himself and his fimily. The passage of Genesis, 
which it is intended; to illustrate, fe^jcjh. xliii. 13, 14., of which the 
following is a representation^ <|^eek characters j the words 

preserved being in- capital letters. "•%#* fljr 

1 Catalogus Bibliotliec® CpttOfliante, p. 3G5. (folio, 1802.) Casings patalogue of 
MSS. in the King’s library, pp. viii. ii. , ■ * 

5 These permutations were a fruitful souree of errors in manuscripts, Some instances 
of them are given infra, Chap. V, § IIE ’/ . ‘ ** 

s Catalogus Bibliothecae Cottonianse, p. 3 #5, _ 

4 Yetusta Monumenta, quae ad Rerum Britannicarum Memoriam Conservandam 
Soeietas Antiquariorum suunptu suo edenda curavit. Eondini, 1747, folio, tom. i. PI. 
LXVII. No. VI. etYII. 

Sect. III. § 3.] Containing the Septmgint Version . 


KAITONAAEAftONTMOv Xa/ 3 et£ >ta: am 
2TANTE2K ATAB HTEITP02 tov a>£rpw 
nON’OAEOXMOTAOH vpiv %apiv emv 
AMEIN-ErOMENrAPKA©®^ rj tewm 

In English, thus : 

N-ANDMAY(5DGIVE you favour be 
FORETHEMANTHAT he may send back 
AMIN’ASFORMEAS I have been be 

The subject on the left-hand of the same plate is Joseph’s interview 
with his brethren in his own house, on their return into Egypt. It 
illustrates Genesis xliii. 30, 31., and is as follows : 

• 1 'rapa%$ 7 j fie Idtxrvj cvvza 
ENEKEI*KAINI^AMEN02T0 mpao-aitov 

Uapa^ETE apTOVi ; • 

In English, thus : 

And Joseph was discomposed* 


cOMEFORTHHERESTRAINED himself- and said 
set on bread. 

The larger Greek characters at the foot of Plate I. are copied from 
the third plate of Mr. Astle’s work on the Origin of Writing: they 
exhibit the four first words of Gen. xiv. 17. of the same size as in the 
Codex Cottonian us Genesecos, before the calamitous fire above no- 
ticed. The loss of the consumed parts of this precious manuscript 
would have been irreparable, had not extracts of its various read- 
ings been made by different learned men, which have been pre- 
served to the present time. Thus the collations of it by Archbishop 
Usher and Patrick Young, in the middle of the seventeenth century, 
are printed in the sixth volume of Bishop Walton’s Polyglott Edition 
of the Bible. Archbishop Usher’s autograph collation is deposited 
in the Bodleian Library, among the other MSS. of that distinguished 
prelate. The principal various readings, noted by Dr. Gale, towards 
the close of the same century, are entered in the margin of an Aldine 
edition of the Greek Version, which subsequently belonged to die 

128 * Account of Manuscripts [Part I. Ch. III. 

late Dr. Kennicott. But the xnost valuable collation is that made in 
the year 1 703, by Dr. Grabe, who was deeply skilled in palaeography, 
and bequeathed by him to the Bodleian Library, whence the late 
Rev. Dr. Owen published it at London, in 1778, in an octavo volume. 
Dr. Holmes has chiefly followed Grabe’ s extract of various readings, 
in his critical edition of the Septuagint, but he has occasionally 
availed himself of Archbishop Usher’s collation . 1 * * 

The Codex Cottonianus is the most antient manuscript of any part 
of the Old Testament that is extant. It is acknowledged to have 
been written towards the end of the fourth , or in the beginning of the 
ffth century ; and it seldom agrees with any manuscript or printed 
edition, except the Codex Alexandrinus, which has been described 
in pp. 116 — 122. of the present volume. There are, according to 
Dr. Holmes, at least twenty instances in which this manuscript ex- 
presses the meaning of the original Hebrew more accurately than 
any other exemplars. 

II. III. The Codices Sarravianus (now in the Public Library 
of the Academy at Leyden), and Colbertinus, (formerly numbered 
3084. among the Colbert MSS., but at present deposited in the Royal 
Library at Paris,) are distinct parts of the same manuscript, and con- 
tain the Pentateuch, and the books of Joshua and Judges. The 
Codex Sarravianus is defective in those very leaves, viz. seven in 
Exodus, thirteen in Leviticus, and two in Numbers, which are found 
in the Coibertine manuscript; the writing of which, as well as the 
texture of the vellum, and other peculiarities, agree so closely with 
those of the Codex Sarravianus, as to demonstrate their perfect 
identity. These manuscripts are neatly written on thin vellum, in 
uncial letters, with which some round characters are intermixed, the 
ink of which is beginning to turn yellow. The contractions or 
abbreviations, permutations of letters, &c. are the same which are 
found in the Codex Cottonianus. These two Codices, as they are 
termed, may be referred to the fifth or sixth century. To some 
paragraphs of the book of Leviticus, titles or heads have been pre- 
fixed, evidently by a later hand. 

IY. The Codex Gzesareus (which is also frequently called the 
Codex Argenteus, and Codex Argenteo-Purpureus, because 
it is written in silver letters on 'purple vellum ,) is preserved in the 
Imperial Library at Vienna. The letters are beautiful but thick, 
partly round and partly square. In size, it approximates to the quarto 
form : it consists of twenty-six leaves only, the first twenty-four of 
which contain a fragment of the book of Genesis, viz. from chapter 
iii. 4. to chap. viii 4 . 24. : the two last contain a fragment of St. Luke’s 
Gospel, viz. chapter xxiv. verses 21—49. In Wetstein’s critical 
edition of the Greek New Testament, these two leaves are denoted 
by the letter N. The first, twenty-four leaves are ornamented with 

1 Another collation was made by the eminent critic, Crusius, who highly commended 

the Codex Cottonianus in two dissertations published by him at Gottingen in 1744 and 

1745^ Crusius s collation subsequently fell into the hands of Breitinger, the editor of th© 

beautiful edition of the Septuagint published at Zurich in 1730— 1733. It is not at pre- 
sent known what has become of this collation. 

Sect. III. § 3.] Containing the Sejptuagint Version . 129 

forty-eight curious miniature paintings, which Lambecius refers to the 
age of Constantine ; but, from the shape of the letters, this manuscript 
is rather to be assigned to the end of the fifth or the beginning of the 
sixth century. In these pictures, the divine prescience and providence 
are represented by a hand proceeding out of a cloud : and they ex- 
hibit interesting specimens of the habits, customs, and amusements of 
those early times. 1 From the occurrence of the words xiTa>vug ( Kitonas ) 
instead of ( CHitonas ), and AfiipsksK ( AbimeleK ) instead of 

AfiifjLeksx ( AbimeleCH ), Dr. Holmes is of opinion that this manuscript 
was written by dictation. Vowels, consonants, &c. are interchanged in 
the same manner as in the Codex Cottonianus, and similar abbre- 
viations are likewise found in it. In some of its readings the Codex 
Caesareus resembles the Alexandrian manuscript. In his letter to the 
Bishop of Durham, published in 1795, and containing a specimen of 
his proposed new edition of the Septuagint version with various lec- 
tions 2 , Dr. Holmes printed the entire text of this MS. which had 
been collated and revised for him by Professor Alter, of Vienna ; and 
he also gave an engraved fac-simile of the whole of its seventh page. 
From this fac-simile our specimen is copied in Plate 5. No. 2. It is 
the seventeenth verse of the fourteenth chapter of the book of Genesis, 
and runs thus in ordinary Greek characters. 


In English, thus, as nearly as the idiom of our language will allow : 



V. The Codex Ambiiosianus derives its name from the Ambrosian 
Library at Milan, where it is preserved : it is probably as old as the 
seventh century. This manuscript is a large square quarto (by Mout- 
faucon erroneously termed a folio), written in three columns in a 

i The whole forty-eight embellishments are engraven in the third volume of Lam- 
beciu&’s Commcntarioruin de augustissima bibliotheca Cffisarea-Vindobonensi, libriviii. 
(VmUobonae, 1665— 1G79, folio, 8 vols.) They are also republished in NesseLius’s Bre- 
viarum ct Supplementum Commentanorum Bibliotheca? Cfesarese-Vindobonensis (Vinda- 
bona?, 6 parts, in 2 vols. folio), vol.i. pp.55 — 102. : and again in the third book or volume 
of Kollarius’s second edition of Lambccius’s Commentarii (Vindobonaj, 1766 — 1782, 
8 vols. folio). Montfaucon\ fac-simile of the characters (Palaeographia Grajca, p, 194.) 
has been made familiar to English readers by a portion of it, which has been copied by Mr. 
Astle (on the Origin of Writing, plate iii. p. 70.) : but his engraver is said by Dr. Dib- 
din (Bibliographical Decameron, vol. i. p. xliv.) to have deviated from the original, and 
to have executed the fac-simile in too heavy a manner. Dr. D has himself given a most 
beautiful fac simile of one of the pictures of this MS. in the third volume of his Biblio- 
graphical and Antiquarian Tour in France and Germany. 

Q Honorabili et admodum Reverendo, Shute Barrington, LL. D. Episcopo Dunelrn- 
ensi, Epistola, complexa Genesin ex Codice Purpurea- Argenteo Caesareo-Vindobonensi 
expressam, et Testamenti Veteris Grasci, Versionis Septuaginta-viralis cum Variis Lec- 
tionibus denuo edendi, Specimen. Dedit Robertus Holmes, S. T.*P. e^Collegio Novo, 
et nuperrime Publicusin Academia Oxoniensi Poetices Prelector. Oxonii, MDCCXCV. 




Account of Manuscripts [Part I. Ch. IIL 

round uncial character. The accents and spirits however have evi- 
dently been added by a later hand. 

VI. The Codex Coislinianus originally belonged to M. Seguier, 

Chancellor of France in the middle of the seventeenth century, a 
munificent collector of biblical manuscripts, from whom it passed, by 
hereditary succession, to the Due de Coislin. From his library it 
was transferred into that of the monastery of Saint Germain-Des-Prez, 
and thence into the Royal Library at Paris, where it now is. Ac- 
cording to Montfaucon, by whom it is particularly described it is 
in quarto, and was written in a beautiful round uncial character, in 
the sixths or at the latest in the seventh century. But the accents and 
spirits have been added by a comparatively recent hand. It consists of 
two hundred and twenty-six leaves of vellum, and formerly contained 
the octateuch , (that is the five books of Moses, and those of Joshua, 
Judges, and Ruth,) the two books of Samuel and the two books of 
Kings ; but it is now considerably mutilated by the injuries of time. 
The copyist was totally ignorant of Hebrew, as is evident from the 
following inscription, which he has placed at the beginning of the 
book of Genesis : — Ba^trs^ ttolqcl E/3ga ioig, onsg egtiv EgjU.sveuo/jc,Evov, 
A oyoi Yipegoov, — that is, Bapyjo-e^ in Hebrew, which being interpreted is 
(or means) the Woi'ds of Days, or the history of the days , i.e the history 
of the six days 5 work of creation. This word B apycrsS (, Bareseth ) is 
no other than the Hebrew 7 word (b^RESHITh) in the begin- 

ning , which is the first word in the book of Genesis. Montfaucon 
further observed that this manuscript contained readings very similar 
to those of the Codex Alexandrinus ; and his remark is confirmed by 
Dr. Holmes, so far as respects the Pentateuch. 

VII. The Codex Basiliano-Vaticanus is the last of the MSS. 
in uncial characters collated by Dr. H. It formerly belonged to a 
monastery in ^Calabria, whence it was transferred by Pietro Memniti, 
superior of the monks of the order of Saint Basil at Rome into the 
library of his monastery ; and thence it passed into the papal library 
of the Vatican, where it is now numbered 2,106. It is written on 
vellum, in oblong leaning uncial characters and according to Mont- 
faucon was executed in the ninth century. Dr, Holmes considers it 
to be a manuscript of considerable value and importance, which, 
though in many respects it corresponds with the other MSS. collated 
by him, yet contains some valuable lections which are no where 
else to be found. On this account it is to be regretted that the Codex 
Basiliano-Vaticanus is imperfect both at the beginning and end. 

VIII. The Codex Turicensis is numbered 262 in Mr. Parson's 
catalogue of MSS, collated for the book of Psalms, in his continu- 
ation of the magnificent edition of the Septuagint commenced by the 
late Rev. Dr. Holmes. It is a quarto manuscript of the book of 
Psalms, the writing of which proves it to have been executed at least 
in the eleventh century, if not much earlier,* and consists of two hun- 
dred and twenty-two leaves of extremely thin purple vellum ; and the 
silver characters and golden initial letters are in many parts so de- 

> Bibliotheca Coisliniana, olira Seguieriana, folio, Paris, 1732. 

Sect. III. § 4-.] Containing the New Testament . 131 

cayed by the consuming hand of time, as to be with difficulty legible. 
The portions of the psalms wanting in this MS. are Psal. i. — xxv. ; 
xxx. 1. — xxxvi. 20.; xli. 5. — xliii. 2. ; lviii. 13. — lix. 4. ; lxiv. 11. 
Ixxi. 4. ; xcii. 3. — xciii. 7. ; and xcvi. 12. — xcvii. 8. Several of the 
antient ecclesiastical hymns, which form part of this MS., are also 
mutilated. It is, however, consolatory to know that those portions 
of the psalms which are deficient in the Codices Alexandrinus and 
Vaticanas, may be supplied from the Codex Turicensis 1 : and this 
circumstance, it should seem, occasioned the generally accurate 
traveller, Mr. Coxe (whose error has been implicitly copied by suc- 
ceeding writers) to state that the MS. here described once formed 
part of the Codex Vaticanus. 2 


I. The Codex Cottonianus . (Titus C. XV.) — II. The Codex Bezce , or Can - 
iabrigiensis . — III. The Codex Ephremi . — IV. The Codex Claromon - 
tamis. — V. The Codex Argenteus . — MSS . of the Gothic Version dis- 
covered by sigYtor Mai. — VI. The Codex Rescriptus of St. Mat - 
theft) s Gospel in Trinity College , Dublin*-— VII. The Codex Lau - 
dianus , 3. — VIII. The Codex Coislinianus . — IX. The Codex Boerne- 
rianus. — X. The Codex Cyprius . — XL The Codex Basileensis E. — 
XII. The Codex San-Germanensis . — XIII. The Codex Augiensis . — 
XIV. The Codex Harleianus , 5598. — XV. The Codex Regius or Ste - 
phani '/). — XVI. The Codex Uffenbachianus . — XVII. The Codices 
Manners- Suttoniani . — XVIII. The Codices Mosquenses . — XIX. The 
Codex Bnxiensis . — XX. Other MSS . written in small characters and 
deserving of especial notice , viz. 1. The Codex Basileensis-, 1. — 2* The 
Codex Berolinensis . — 3. The Codex Corsendoncensis . — 4. The Codex 
Monifortianus. — 5. The Codex Meermannianus. — 6. The Codex Re- 
gius , 50. — 7. The Codex Leicestrensis . — 8. The Codex Vindobonensis . — 
9. The Codex Ebnerianus. — 10. The Codex Ottobonianus . — XXI. No- 
tice of the Collations of the Barberini and Velesian Manuscripts. 

THE autographs, or manuscripts of the New Testament, which 
were written either by the apostles themselves, or by amanuenses 
under their immediate inspection 3 , have long since perished; and 
we have no information whatever concerning their history. The 
pretended autograph of St. Mark’s Gospel at Venice is now known 
to be nothing more than, a copy of the Latin version 4 , and no exist- 
ing manuscripts of the New Testament can be traced higher than 
the fourth century ; and most of them are of still later date. Some 
contain the whole of the New Testament ; others comprise particular 

i The preceding description of the Codex Turicensis is abridged from Professor Brei- 
tingcr’s scarce tract, addressed to Cardinal Quirini, and intitled “ De antiquissimo 
Turicensis Bibliothecas Grseco Psalmorum Libro, Epistola. Turiqi. 1748,” 4to. 

a See Coxe’s Travels in Switzerland, in Pinkerton’s Collection of Voyages and Tra- 
vels, vol. vi. p. 672. 4to. 

3 Saint Paul dictated most of his epistles to amanuenses ; but, to prevent the circulation 
of spurious letters, he wrote the concluding benediction with his own hand, Compare 
Rom. xvi. 22. Gal. vi. 11. and 2 Thess, iii. 17,18. with I Qor.xvi.21. 

4 See Vol. IV. Part II. Ch. It. Sect. III. § V. infra. 


Account of the Principal Manuscripts [Part I. Ch. Ill, 

books or fragments of books ; and there are several which contain, 
not whole books arranged according to their usual order, but de- 
tached portions or lessons (avccyva)<rei$) f appointed to be read on cer- 
tain days in the public service of the Christian church; from which 
again whole books have been put together. These are called Lee- 
tionaria. , and are of two sorts: 1. Evangelhteria , containing lessons 
from the four Gospels; and, 2. Apostolos , comprising lessons from 
the Acts and Epistles, and sometimes only the Epistles themselves. 
When a manuscript contains both parts, Michaelis says that it is 
called A postolo-Eva ngelion. Forty-six Evangel isteria were collated 
by Griesbach for the four Gospels of his edition of the New Testa- 
ment ; and seven Lectionaria or Apostoli, for the Acts and Epistles. 1 
Some manuscripts, again, have not only the Greek text, but are ac- 
companied with a version, which is either interlined, or in a parallel 
column ; these are called Codices Bilingues . The greatest number 
is in Greek and Latin; and the Latin version is, in general, one of 
those which existed before the time of Jerome. As there are extant 
Syriac-Arabic and Gothic-Latin manuscripts, Midhaelis thinks it 
probable that there formerly existed Greek-Syriac, Greek-Gothic, 
and other manuscripts of that kind, in wMeh 4 the original and some 
version were written together, 2 Where a y|ns|rib$r, Instead of 
copying from one and the same antienlp mJnt!fecnpt| selects from 
several those readings, which appear to him' to be the best, the 
manuscript so transcribed is termed a Codex Criticus* * 

Besides the Alexandrian and Vatican nianuscMp# wfelch have 
been already described, the following are the principal manuscripts 
of the New Testament, of every description, which are more peculi- 
arly worthy of notice. 

I. The Codex Cottonianus (Titus C. XV.), preserved in the 
Cottonian Library in the British Museum, is a most precious frag- 
ment of the four Gospels, written in silver letters on a faded purple 
ground. It is one of the oldest (if not the most antient) manuscript 
of any part of the New Testament that is^xtant ;* and contains, 

(1.) Part of Saint Matthew’s Gospel, beginning at Chapter XXVI. v. 57- 
and ending with v. 65. of the same Chapter. 

(2.) Part of the same Gospel, beginning at Chapter XXVII. v. 26. and 
ending with v. 34. of the same Chapter. 

(3.) Part of Saint John’s Gospel, beginning at Chapter XIV. v. 2. and 
ending with v. 10. of the same Chapter. 

(4.) Part of the same Gospel, beginning at Chapter XV, v. 15. and 
ending with v. 22. of the same Chapter. 

In the accompanying Plate 3. No. 1. we have given a fac-simile 
of John xiv. 6. from this manuscript, of which the following is a 

J Griesbach, Proleg, ad Nov. Test. tom. i. pp, cxix. — exxii. In the second volume 
of his Symbolae Criiicae, (pp. 3 — 30. i Dr. G. has described eleven important Evange- 
listeria, which had cither been not collated before, or were newly examined and collated 
by himself. Michaelis, vol. ii. parti, pp. 161 — 163. part ii. 639, 6-10. The Rev. Dr. 
Dibdin has described a superb Evangelistorium, and has given fac-similes of its ornaments, 
ill the first volume of his Bibliographical Decameron, pp. xcii. — xciv. This precious 
manuscript is supposed to have been written at the close of the eleventh, or early in the 
thirteenth century. The illuminations are executed with singular beauty and delicacy. 

3 Introduction to the New Test. vol. ii. part. i. p. 164, 

/. Of' (be Coded Cot/oeuanus r T '2u.s O’. XV.) 

.Jo/m XIV. 6. ^ 


6 rCD 61 M 6 HHO 



•i rpocroi iirf.' 

01 M H AJ 0 M Oy 

3. Of(/,c Code.. 

0 vfA f CJi&^TWN-TH 



2. Of ' doe Cbdfc f/ar/eietrut-i ' . 

OVOtfdgSf .jo/jnZJS. 

On cmei c e id 

/ OVVN flf TON KM 


N 0 C f 2 H r H CATO * 


l)OVVCK0Y rH£1<:W,1 ^N 













6 5 c 

2 ? o 

r 0 3 
f- X 3 □ 
-5 « £> 
Z £ £ 


^ P< 

< CD _ 

0 ) W 

v CL) 

■s cl) ?; 

"S H ^ 

n (j r 

fc o a, 


CD ^ ^ 

£ ^ s 

^ CD P 


Z % O 

f- S 
ii cd "O 


! 4 

f a 

JSI J£1 


be^Tip^upej^esspC quoi^n^mipsopxjcneST 


Sect. III. § 4.] Containing the New Testament . 

representation in ordinai'y Greek characters, with the corresponding 
literal English version. 















The words 1H20TS {Jesus), 0EO2 {God), KTPIOS {Lord), 
TIOS ( So?i ), and 2X2THP (Saviour), are written in letters of gold; 
the three first with contractions similar to those in the Codex Alex- 
andrinus, and Codex Bezae. This precious fragment is acknowledged 
to have been executed at the end of the fourth, or at the latest in 
the beginning of the fifth century. 

II. The Codex Bez/e, also called the Codex Cantabiugiensis, 
is a Greek and Latin manuscript, containing the four Gospels and 
the Acts of the Apostles. It is deposited in the public library of the 
university of Cambridge, to which it was presented by the celebrated 
Theodore Beza, in the year 1581. Of this manuscript, which is 
written on vellum, in quarto, without accents or marks of aspiration, 
or spaces between the words, the accompanying fac-simile will con- 
vey an idea. It represents the first three verses of the fifth chapter 
of Saint Matthew’s Gospel, which are copied from Dr. Kipling’s fac- 
simile edition of the Codex Beza?, published at Cambridge in 1793, 
of which an account is given in pp. 20, 21. of the Appendix to this 
volume. We have placed the Latin wider the Greek, in order to 
bring the whole within the compass of an octavo page. The follow- 
ing is a literal English version of this fac-simile. 

Matt. V. 1—3. 








Sixty-six leaves of this manuscript are much torn ahd mutilated, 
find ten of them have been supplied by a later transcriber. 

The Codex Bezae is noted with the letter D. by Wetstein and 
Griesbach. In the Greek it is defective, from the beginning to 
Matt. i. 20., and in the Latin to Matt. i. 12. In the Latin it has 
likewise the following chasms, viz. Matt. vi. 20.' — ix. 2. ; Matt, xxvii. 
1 — 12.; John i. 16.— ii. 26.; Acts viii. 29.— x. 14.; xxii. 10— 20.; 

f Contracted for Spirit. The Greek is TINI, TINEYMATI ; and the Latin Sru, for 


IC 3 

134 < Account of the Principal Manuscripts [Part I. Ch. III. 

and from xxii. 29. to the end. The Gospels are arranged in the 
usual order of the Latin manuscripts, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, 
It has a considerable number of corrections, some of which have 
been noticed by Dr. Griesbach; and some of the pages, containing 
Matt. iii. 8 — 16. John xviii. 13. — xx. 13. and Markxv. to the end, 
are written by a later hand, which Wetstein refers to the tenth cen- 
tury, but Griesbach to the twelfth. The Latin version is that which 
was in use before the time of Jerome, and is usually called the Old 
Italic or Ante-Hieronymian version. In the margin of the Greek 
part of the manuscript there are inserted the Ammonian sections, 
evidently by a later hand ; and the words re\o$, xca As :ys, co&s 

fffyxe, are occasionally interspersed, indicating the beginning and end 
of the Avayvao-^ara, or lessons read in the church- The subjects 
discussed in the Gospels are sometimes written in the margin, some- 
times at the top of the page. But all these notations are manifestly 
the work of several persons and of different ages. The elate of this 
manuscript has been much contested. Those critics who give it 
the least antiquity, assign it to the sixth or seventh century. Wet- 
stein supposed it to be of the fifth century. Michaelis was of opi- 
nion, that of all the manuscripts now extant, this is the most antient. 
Dr. Kipling, the editor of the Cambridge fac-simile, thought it much 
older than the Alexandrian manuscript, and that it must have been 
written in the second century. On comparing it with Greek inscrip- 
tions of different ages, Bishop Marsh is of opinion that it cannot 
have been written later than the sixth century, and that it may have 
been written even two or three centuries earlier : and he finally con- 
siders it prior to all the manuscripts extant, except the Codex Vati- 
canus, and refers it to the fifth century, which, perhaps, is the true date, 
if an opinion may be hazarded where so much uncertainty prevails. 

Wetstein was of opinion, from eleven coincidences which he 
thought he had discovex^ed, that this was the identical manuscript 
collated at Alexandria in 616, for the Philoxenian or later Syriac 
version of the New Testament ; but this is a groundless supposition. 
It is, however, worthy of remark, that many of the readings by which 
the Codex Bezae is distinguished are found in the Syriac, Coptic, 
Sahidic, and in the margin of the Philoxenian- Syriac version. As 
the readings of this manuscript frequently agree with the Latin ver- 
sions before the time of St. Jerome, and with the Vulgate or present 
Latin translation, Wetstein was of opinion that the Greek text was 
altered from the Latin version, or, in other words, that the writer of 
the Codex Bezae departed from the lections of the Greek manuscript 
or manuscripts whence he copied, and introduced in their stead, 
from some Latin version, readings which were warranted by no 
Greek manuscript. This charge Sender, Michaelis, Griesbach, and 
Bishop Marsh have endeavoured to refute ; and their verdict has 
been generally received- Matthaei, however, revived the charge of 
Wetstein, and considered the text as extremely corrupt, and sus- 
pected that some Latin monk, who was but indifferently skilled in 
Greek, wrote in the margin of his New Testament various passages 
from the Greek and Latin fathers, which seemed to refer to parti- 


Sect. III. § 4.] Containing the New Testament . 

cular passages. He further thought that this monk had noted the 
differences occurring in some Greek and Latin manuscripts of the 
New Testament, and added parallel passages of Scripture : and that 
from this farrago either the monk himself, or some other person, 
manufactured his text (whether foolishly or fraudulently is uncertain), 
of which the Codex Bezae is a copy. But this suspicion of Matthaei 
has been little regarded in Germany, where he incurred the anti- 
pathy of the most eminent biblical critics, by vilifying the sources of 
various readings from which he had it not in his power to draw, 
when he began to publish his edition of the New Testament ; giving 
to the Codex Bezae, the Codex Claromontanus (noticed in pp. 1 37, 
138. infra\ and other manuscripts of unquestionable antiquity, the 
appellation of Editio Scurrilis. 1 Bishop Middleton considers the judg- 
ment of Michaelis as approximating very near to the truth, and has 
given a collation of numerous passages of the received text with the 
Codex Bezae; and the result of his examination, which does not 
admit of abridgment, is, that the Codex Bezae, though a most vener- 
able remain of antiquity, is not to be considered, in a critical view, 
as of much authority. He accounts for the goodness of its readings, 
considered with regard to the sense , by the natural supposition of the 
great antiquity of the manuscript, which was the basis of the Codex 
Bezae ; but while its latinising is admitted, he contends that we have 
no reason to infer that its readings, considered in the same light, are 
therefore faulty. The learned prelate concludes with subscribing 
to the opinion of Matthaei somewhat modified. He believes that no 
fraud was intended; but only that the critical possessor of the basis 
filled its margin with glosses and readings chiefly from the Latin, 
being a Christian of the Western Church ; and that the whole col- 
lection of Latin passages was translated into Greek, and substituted 
in the text by some one who had a high opinion of their value, and 
who was better skilled in caligraphy than in the Greek and Latin 
languages. 1 2 The arguments and evidences adduced by Bishop Mid- 
dleton, we believe, are by many, at least in England, considered so 
conclusive, that, though the antiquity of the manuscript is fully ad- 
mitted, yet it must be deemed a latinising manusci'ipt, and, conse- 
quently, is of comparatively little critical value. 

At- the time Beza presented this manuscript to the university of 
Cambridge, it had been in his possession about nineteen years ; and 
in his letter to that learned body he says, that it was found in the 
monastery of Saint Irenaeus at Lyons, where it had lain concealed 
fox' a long time. But how it came there, and in what place it was 
written, are questions concerning which nothing certain is known. 
The most generally received opinion is, that it was written in the 
west of Europe. 

The Cainbi'idge manuscript has been repeatedly collated by criti- 
cal editors of the New Testament. Robert Stephens made extracts 
from it, though with no great accuracy? under the title of Codex /3, 
for his edition of the Greek Testament, of 1550 ; as Beza also did 

1 Bp, Marsh’s Lectures, partii. pp, 30, 31. 

2 Bishop Middleton on the Greek Article, pp. 677 — 398,, first edition. 

1 36 Account of the principal Manuscripts [Part I. Ch. iH. 

for his own edition published in 1582. Since it was sent to the uni- 
versity of Cambridge, it has been more accurately collated by Junius, 
whose extracts were used by Curcellaeus and Father Morin. A fourth 
and more accurate collation of it was made, at the instigation of 
Archbishop Usher, and the extracts were inserted in the sixth vo- 
lume of the London Polyglott, edited by Bishop Walton. Dr. Mill 
collated it a fifth and sixth time ; but that his extracts are frequently 
defective, and sometimes erroneous, appears from comparing them 
with Wetstein’s New Testament, and from a new collation which was 
made, about the year 1738, by Mr. Dickenson of Saint John’s Col- 
lege ; which is now preserved in the library of Jesus’ College, where 
it is marked O, 0, 2. Wetstein’s extracts are also very incor- 
rect, as appears from comparing them with the manuscript itself. 1 

A splendid fac-simile of the Codex Bezae was published by the 
Rev. Dr. Kipling at Cambridge, under the patronage and at the 
expense of the university, in 1793, in 2 vols. atlas folio. Dr. Har- 
wood regulated the text of the Gospels and Acts, in his edition of the 
Greek Testament, chiefly according to the readings of the Codex 
Bezse; which was so highly valued by the learned but eccentric 
divine, Wliiston, that in his tc Primitive New Testament in English,” 
(8vo. Stamford and London, 1745,) he has translated the four Gos- 
pels and Acts literally from this manuscript. Dr. A. Clarke, in his 
Commentary on the New'Testament, has paid very particular atten- 
tion to the readings of the Codex Bezae. 

III. The Codex Ephremi, or Codex PlEGIus, 1905., (at present 
9.) by Wetstein and Griesbach noted with the letter C., is an in- 
valuable Codex Rescriptus, written on vellum, and is of very high 
antiquity. The first part of this manuscript contains several Greek 
■works of Ephrem the Syrian, written over some more antient writ- 
ings which had been erased, though the traces are still visible, and 
in most places legible. These more antient writings were the entire 
Greek Bible. In the New Testament, there are very numerous 
chasms, which are specified by Wetstein, from whom they have 
been copied by Michaelis and Griesbach. The text is not divided 
into columns; the uncial characters are larger than those of the 
Codex Alexandrinus, without accents, and the words are not di- 
vided. There are large initial letters at the beginning of each sec- 
tion; and the text is sometimes divided into articles, not much 
larger than our verses. A small cross indicates the end of a divi- 
sion ; a full point below a letter is equivalent to a comma, and in 
the middle to a semi-colon. The Gospels follow the divisons of 
Ammonius, and also have the titAoj, aprima manu ; the sections of 
the epistles sometimes agree with the amymosis or lessons occurring 
in the MSS. which are known to have been written in Egypt. The 
titles and subscriptions to the several books are very brief, without 
any of the additions which are sometimes found in the Codex Alex- 
andrinus. The Coclex Ephrem i exhibits the text of the Alexan- 

1 Millii Prolegomena, §§1268 — 1273. Griesbach, Symbols) Critic®, tom. i. 
— lxiv. Michaelis, vol.iii. parti, pp. 22S — 242. and partii. pp, 679 — 721. Plug’s 
Introd. vol. i. pp. 275 — 278, 


Sect. III. § 4*.] Containing the New Testament . 

drine Recension in its greatest purity, and numerous other indi- 
cations of its Egyptian origin. In this manuscript the disputed verse, 
John v. 4., is written, not in the text, but as a marginal scholion. 
Wetstein conjectured, that this was one of the manuscripts that were 
collated at Alexandria in 616 with the new Syriac version; but of 
this there is no evidence. From a marginal note to Heb. viii. 7. the 
same critic also argued, that it was written before the institution of 
the feast of the Virgin Mary ; that is, before the year 542. But his 
arguments are not considered as wholly decisive by Michaelis, who 
only asserts its great antiquity in general terms. Bishop Marsh 
pronounces it to be at least as antient as the seventh century; and Pro- 
fessor Hug considers it to be even older than the Codex Alexan- 
drinus. The readings of the Codex Ephremi, like those of all other 
very antient manuscripts, are in favour of the Latin ; but there is no sa- 
tisfactory evidence that it has been corrupted from the Latin version. 
It has been altered by a critical collator, who, according to Gries- 
bacb, must have lived many years after the time when the manuscript 
was written, and who probably erased many of the antient readings. 
Kuster was the first who procured extracts from this manuscript for 
his edition of Dr. Mill’s Greek Testament. Wetstein has collated 
it with very great accuracy; and the numerous readings he has 
quoted from it greatly enhance the value of his edition. 1 

IV. The Codex Clauomontan us, or Regius 2245., is a Greek- 
Latin manuscript of St. Paul’s Epistles, found in the monastery of 
Clermont, in the diocese of Beauvais, and used by Beza, together 
with the Codex Cantabrigiensis, in preparing his edition of the New 
Testament. It follows the Western Recension, and is noted D. by 
Wetstein and Griesbach in the second volumes of their respective 
editions of the Greek Testament. Sabatier supposes it to have been 
written in the sixth century ; Montfaucon places it in the seventh 
century; Griesbach thinks it was written in the sixth or seventh 
century, and Hug, in the eighth century. This manuscript is writ- 
ten on vellum in uncial characters, and with accents and marks of 
aspiration added by another hand, but of great antiquity. As it 
contains the Epistle to the Hebrews, which has been added by a 
later hand, it is supposed to have been written in the west of Europe.' 
Dr. Mill contended that the Codex Claroniontanus was the second 
part of the Codex Bezoe; but this opinion has been confuted by 
Wetstein, who has shown that the former is by no means connected 
with the latter, as appears from the difference of their form ? their 
orthography, and the nature of the vellum on which they are written* 
Bishop Marsh adds, on the authority of a gentleman who had exa- 
mined both manuscripts, that the Codex Cl aromontanus contains only 
twenty-one lines in each page, while the Cambridge manuscript con-* 
tains thirty-three lines in a page ; the abbreviations in the two manu-* 

1 JWetstetiii Nov. Test, tom, i, Proleg. pp. 27, 28. Griesbach’s Symb. Crit. torn. i* 
pp. x»- — liv. and Nov. Test, tom, i. pp. ei. cii. Michaelis, vol. ii. part i. pp. 258 — 2GO. 
part ii. pp. 787, 738. Hug’s Introduction, vol. i. pp. 271 — 273. See also the Palax>- 
graphia Graeca of Montfaucon (pp. 213, 214.) who has given a fac-simile of this mamu 
script, which Professor Ilug says is not equal to the elegance of this codex. 

138 Account of the principal Manuscripts [Parti. Ch. III. 

scripts are also different. The Codex Claromontanus, like other 
Greek-Latin manuscripts, has been accused of having a Greek Text, 
that has been altered from the Latin; but this charge has been satis- 
factorily refuted by Dr. Semler. The migrations of this manuscript 
are somewhat remarkable. From the hands of Beza it went into 
the Putean library, which derived its name from the family of De 
Puy. Jacques De Puy, who was librarian to the king of France, 
and died in 1656, bequeathed it, together with his other manuscripts, 
to the Royal Library at Paris, where it is now preserved, and at pre- 
sent is marked 107. According to the accounts of Wetstein and 
Sabatier, thirty-six leaves were cut out of it at the beginning of the 
last century, (it is supposed by John Aymon, a notorious literary 
thief of that time,) and were sold in England; but they were sent 
back by the Earl of Oxford in 1729. The manuscript, therefore, is 
once more complete, as the covering only is wanting in which the 
stolen sheets had been enclosed, which is kept in the British Mu- 
seum, and filled with the letters that passed on the occasion, as a 
monument of this infamous theft. 1 

V. The Codex Akgenteus is a manuscript containing the four 
Gospels, in the Gothic version of Ulphilas 2 , which is preserved in 
the university of Upsal. It is written on vellum, and has received 
the name of Argenteus from its silver letters; it is of a quarto 
size, and the vellum leaves are stained with a violet colour ; and on 
this ground the letters, which are all uncial or capitals, were after- 
wards painted in silver, except the initial characters and a few other 
passages, which are in gold. The cover and back of the volume 
are of silver embossed. From the deep impression of the strokes, 
Ihre, Michaelis, and Hug are of opinion, that the letters were either 
imprinted with a warm iron, cut with a graver, or cast for the 
purpose, and afterwards coloured ; but Mr. Coxe, (with whom the 
late eminent traveller Dr. E. D. Clarke seems to coincide,) after a 
very minute examination, vras convinced that each letter was painted, 
and not formed in the manner supposed by those critics. Most of 
the silver letters have become green by time, but the golden letters 
are still in good preservation. We have no knowledge of this im- 
portant manuscript prior to the discovery of it in the abbey of 
Werden in Westphalia, whence it was taken to Prague. In the 
year 161<8, when that city was stormed by the Swedes, it fell into 
the hands of a Swedish count, who presented it to his sovereign, queen 
Christina. After remaining some time in her library, during the 
confusion which preceded her abdication of the throne of Sweden, 
it suddenly and unaccountably disappeared, and was again brought 
to light in the Netherlands. Some have supposed that the cele- 
brated Isaac Vossius received it as a present from the Queen ; others, 
that he brought it away by stealth. After his death, however, it 
was purchased for six hundred dollars by count Magnus Gabriel de 
la Gardie, who presented it to the university of Upsal, where it 

1 Michaelis, vol. ii, parti, pp. 244 — 24S. partii. pp. *724 — 72S* Griesbach, Symbol® 
Criticas, tom. i. pp, lv. — Ixiv. Hug, vol. i. pp. 280 — 282. 

- See an account of this version, svpra, pp. 75, 76. 


Sect. III. § 4 <.] Containing the New Testament. 

at present remains. The following cut is a faithful fac-simile of 
the characters of the Codex Argenteus : it was traced from the ma- 
nuscript itself for the late Dr. E. D. Clarke, and is the most correct 
fac-simile known to be extant. It corresponds with our version of 
Luke xviii. 17. Verily , I say unto you , Whosoever shall not receive 
the kingdom of God as a little child . , shall in no wise enter therein . 
It is worthy of remark, that, in the Codex Argenetus, the well 
known old Saxon or Gothic word Barn , is used to signify the origi- 
nal word ILo&joi/, a little child . 




nays sve ka&n. ni umkp 
on IZA«: 

Concerning the age of this venerable manuscript, critics are by no 
means agreed. Some of the zealous advocates for its antiquity have 
maintained that it is the very copy which Ulphilas wrote with his 
own hand. The librarian by whom it was exhibited to Dr. Clarke 
stated it to have been completed about the end of the fourth century, 
by a bishop of Thrace, in the Gothic language used at that time in 
Moesia. This brings its age very nearly, if not quite, to the time 
when Ulphilas lived: but it is not likely — indeed it is utterly im- 
probable — that the only copy of the Gothic translation of the Gos- 
pels, which is now extant, should be precisely the original. What 
proves that this capnot be the identical MS. of Ulphilas, is the fact, 
that several various readings have been discovered in the margin, a 
circumstance which clearly shows that it must have been written at 
a time when several transcripts had been already made. 

Some fragments of the Gothic version of St. Paul’s Epistle to the 
Romans were discovered by M. Knittel, in the year 1756, in a Codex 
Rescriptus belonging to the library of the Duke of Brunswick at 
Wolfenbiittel : they were published by him in 1762, and reprinted 
in 1763, in 4<to., at Upsal, with notes by Ihre. The Brunswick ma- 
nuscript contains the version of Ulphilas in one column, and a Latin 
translation in the other: it is on vellum, and is supposed to be of the 
sixth century. In the eighth or ninth century, the Origines Isidori 
Hisyalensis were written over the translation of Ulphilas; but the 
ink had become so exceedingly pale as not to admit of deciphering 
the original manuscript without great difficulty. 1 

In the year 1817, a most important discovery was made among 
the Codices Rescript!, in the Ambrosian library at Milan, by signor 

1 Mickaelis, vol.ii. pp. 190- — 153. 631— 635. Semler, pp. 70 — 72. Viser, Hermeneut. 
Nov. Test. vol. ii„ part in. pp. 56 — 5S. Schoell, Histoire Abr£g6 de la Literature 
Grecque, tom. ii. p. 131. Hug, vol. i. pp. 48S — 498. Coxe’s Travels in Russia, &e . 
vol. iv. pp. 173—180. edit, 1802. Dr. E, D. Clarke’s Travels, vol. vi. pp.183, 184. 4to. 


Account of the principal Manuscripts [Part I. Ch. Ill, 

Angelo Mai’, who is at present keeper of the manuscript-department 
of the Vatican library. While this indefatigable explorer of antient 
literature was examining two Codices Rescript! in the Ambrosian 
library, he was surprised with the discoyeiy of some Gothic writing 
in one of them ; which on further investigation proved to be frag- 
ments of the books of Kings, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The discovery 
thus auspiciously made, stimulated him to further inquiries, which 
were rewarded with the discovery of four other Codices Rescripti 
containing portions of the Gothic version. He now associated in 
his researches, signor Carolo Ottavio Castiliionei ; and to their joint 
labours we are indebted for a specimen and account 1 of these manu- 
scripts, from which the following particulars are abridged. 

Theirs* of these five Gothic MSS. (which is noted S. 36.) consists of 
204 quarto pages on vellum ; the later writing contains the homilies of 
Gregory the Great on the Prophecies of Ezekiel, which from their cha- 
racters must have been executed before the eighth century. Beneath 
this, in a more antient Gothic hand, are contained the Epistles of St, 
Paul to the Romans, 1st and 2d Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, 
Colossians, 1st and 2d of Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, together with 
a fragment of the Gothic Calendar. The Epistles to the Romans, Co- 
rinthians, Ephesians, and to Timothy, are very nearly entire, and form 
the chief part of this MS. : of the other Epistles, considerable fragments 
only remain. The titles of the Epistles may be traced at the heads of 
the pages where they commence. This MS. appears to have been writ- 
ten by two different copyists, one of whom wrote more beautifully and 
correctly than the other ; and various readings may be traced in some 
of the margins written in a smaller hand. Entire leaves have been 
turned upside down by the rescriber of this MS. A fac-simile specimen 
of this manuscript is given in the accompanying Plate 5. No. 1. It re- 
presents the commencement of Paul’s Epistles to the Ephesians, and 
may be thus rendered : The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians begin net h. 
Pauh an apostle of Jesus Christ according to the mill of God , to the saints 
mho at Ephesus. 

. The seco 7 ul MS. also, in quarto, and noted S. 45,, contains 156 pages of 
thinner vellum, the Latin writing on which is of the eighth or ninth cen- 
tury, and comprises Jerome’s exposition of Isaiah. Under this has been 
discovered, (though with some difficulty, on account of, the thickness of 
the Latin characters antLthc\ blackness o| the ink,) the Gothic version of 
Saint Paul’s two Eplstle^tq tlfe Corinthians, the Galaftians, Ephesians, 
Philippians, Colossians, the two Epistles to the Thessalonians and to Titus. 
What is deficient in the preceding MS. is found in this, which has some 
various readings peculiar to itsfelf, and therefore is ari independent codex. 

In the third manuscript, noted G. 82., a quarto Latin volume, contain- 
ing the plays of Plautus, and part of Seneca’s Tragedies of Medea and 
(Edipus, signor Ma'i discovered fragments of the Books of Kings, Ezra, 
and Nehemiah, This discovery is peculiarly valuable, as not the smallest 
portion of the Gothic version of the Old Testament Mias known to be in 
existence ; and, further, as it furnishes a complete refutation of the idle 
tale repeated by Gibbon after preceding writers, viz. that Ulphilas pru- 
dently suppressed the four Books of Kings, as they might tend to irritate 
the fierce and sanguinary spirit of his countrymen. 2 The date of the 

1 Ulpbil® Partium Ineditarum, in Ambrosianis Palimpsestis ab Angelo Maio reper- 
tarum, Specimen, conjuuctis curis ejusdem Mail cl Caroli Oetavii Castillionasi editum, 

Mediolani, Regiis Typis, M. DCCC. XIX, 4to. c Decline and Fall, vol. vi. p.269. 



’/■ fj/ //////■ 


'/■ ' 

7 //////// 




/. // // ^ ^ /// // > 
^ y /.t/Y't v ///■/ /// /// • '//// 

,ri jjf; /_ [ _:v. :: CD fi : 

& m y, a r s 1 

0° <e 

g*WWW£ TesfrxN 

v // //, /. 

/V//-V’ ( //•//// /yaj r. 

6ih/\©gnA6 bjxcia 


3 yeeo-koivicjD n e i ccy n 

DN B A Cl \ ecu N'CICTHN 


Sect. III. § 4.] Containing the New Testament . 

Latin writing of this MS. which Mai deciphered with great difficulty, is 
not specified ; but, on comparing his specimen of it with other engraved 
specimens, we are inclined to refer it to the eighth or ninth century. 

Th £ fourth specimen (noted 1.61.) consists of a single sheet in small 
quarto, containing four pages of part of Saint John’s Gospel in Latin, 
under which are found the very fragments of the twenty-fifth, twenty- 
sixth, and twenty-seventh chapters of Matthew’s Gospel, which are want- 
ing in the celebrated manuscript of the Gothic Gospels preserved at Up- 
sal, and usually known by the appellation of the Codex Argenteus . 

Th e fifth and last manuscript, (noted G. 147.) which has preserved some 
remains’ of Gothic literature, is a volume of the proceedings of the Council 
of Chalcedon ; under the later writing have been discovered some frag- 
ments of antient authors, whose names Signor Mai' has not specified ; and 
also a fragment of a Gothic Homily, rich in biblical quotations, and 
the style of which he thinks shows that it was translated from some one 
of the fathers of the Greek church. The characters of this MS. bear a 
close resemblance to those of the Codex Argenteus, at Upsal, which was 
executed in the sixth century. 

The manuscripts above described are written in broad and thick 
characters, without any division of words or of chapters, but with 
contractions of proper names, similar to those found in antient Greek 
MSS. Some sections, however, have been discovered, which are 
indicated by numeral marks or larger spaces, and sometimes by large 
letters. The Gothic writing is referred to the sixth century. 

The portions of the Gothic version of the Old and New Testament, 
printed by signors Mai' and Castilliojici, are, I. Nehemiah, chap. v. 
verses 13 — IS. chap. vi. 14 — 19. and vii. 1 — 3. II. A Fragment of 
Saint Matthew’s Gospel, containing chap. xxv. 38 — 46. xxvi. 1 — 3., 
65 — 75. and xxvii. 1. : this fragment contains the whole of the pas- 
sages which are wanting in the Upsal MS. of the four Gospels. 
III. Part of St. PauTs Epistle to the Philippians, chap, ii, 22 — 30. 
and iii. 1 — 16. IV. Saint Paul's Epistle to Titus, chap. i. 1 — : 16. 
ii, 1. ; and V. verses 11 — 23. of his Epistle to Philemon. The Go- 
thic text is exhibited on the left-hand page, and on the right-hand 
page the editors have given a literal Latin translation of it, together 
with the Greek original. These arc succeeded by fragments of a 
Gothic Homily, and Calendar, with Latin translations, Gothic alpha- 
bet, and a glossary of new Gothic words which they have discovered 
in the passages which they have printed. 

VI, A very valuable Codex IIeschiptus was discovered Dearly 
thirty years since by the (late) Ilev. Dr, Barrett, senior fellow of Tri- 
nity College, Dublin. While he was examining different books in 
the library of that college, he accidentally met J|th a veryvaj^git 
Greek manuscript, on certain leaves of which hollhserved%tw^®i 
writing, one antient and the other comparatively .recent, 
over the former. The original writing on these leases JreS been 
greatly defaced, either by the injuries of time, or by art ; on close 
examination he found, that this antient writing consisted of the three 
following fragments : — the Prophet Isaiah, the Evangelist Saint 
Matthew, and certain orations of Gregory Nazianzen. The frag- 
ment, containing Saint Matthew's Gospel, Dr. Barrett carefully tran- 


Account of the principal Manuscripts [Part I. Ch. III. 

scribed ; and the whole has been accurately engraved in fac-simile by 
the order and at the expense of the University, thus presenting to 
the reader a perfect resemblance of the oi'iginal. 1 The accompany- 
ing engraving is copied from Dr. B.’s first plate. It represents the 
18th and 19th verses of the first chapter of Saint Matthew’s Gospel. 
We have subjoined the same verses in ordinary Greek types, with a 
literal version in parallel columns. 

V. 18 . TorAErrxTHrENESiSor 

2H2TH2MHTPO:2ArrO. . . 
m api ASTnmsH 4>npm 

V. 18. Nowthebirtiiofjsciittii 





V.19. Ih2h4>aeoanhpatth2 


V. 19. josePHtheniieriiusband 



Oft he original writing of this manuscript, which Dr, Barrett calls 
the Co$£x Fetus , only sixty-four leaves remain, in a very mutilated 
state : each page contains one column ; and the columns in general 
consist of twenty-one lines, and sometimes (though rarely) of twenty- 
two or twenty-three ; the lines are nearly of equal lengths, and con- 
sist, ordinarily, of eighteen or twenty square letters, written on vellum 
originally of a purple colour, blit without any points. From these 
two circumstances, as well as from the division of the text, the ortho- 
graphy, mode of pointing, abbreviations, and from some other con- 
siderations, Dr. Barrett, with great probability, fixes its age to the 
sixth century. This manuscript follows the Alexandrian Recension. 
The Codex Rece?i&> or latter writing (which contains several tracts of 
some Greek fathers! Me attributes to a scribe of the thirteenth cen- 
tury : about whichjjiffieit becameji general practice to erase antient 
writings, and insea^otfferS iri 'theit v place. 2 ’ 

VlL The Code#* LSUdianm as itr is noted by Dr. Mill, but 
noted by the letter E byWetstein^nd *JE by Griesbach, is a Greek- 
Latin manuscript of the Acts of the Apostles, in which the Latin text 
is one of those versions whi6h differ from Jerome’s ^edition, having 
been altered from the particular Gi'eek text of thte manuscript. It is 
defective from chap. xxvi. 29. to xxviii. 26. 

This manuscript is erroneously supposed to have been the Identical 
book used by the venerable Bede in the seventh century, becaluse it 

1 The title of this interesting (and comparatively little known) publication is as follows : 
“Evangelium Secundum Matthaeum ex Codice Kescripto in Bibliotheca Collegu SSm. 
Trinitatis juxta Dublin : Descriptuin Opera ct Studio Johannis Barrett, S. T. P. 
MDCCCI.” 4to, 

a Dr, Barrett’s Prolegomena, pp. 2 — 9. 

3 So called from Archbishop Laud, who gave this, among many other precious manu- 
scripts, to the University of Oxford. It is now preserved in the Bodleian Library, F. 82. 
No. 1119. 

N *; 


' $ 


N \ 




, V 




: i 


0 h 

1 < < 

U CD - 0 

^ 1 - -^ 

P— “1 CD -* 

i - b Sr 
— 1 ^ ® 

^ _ o z h ?> 


Z hgi t - . 

£^^2 3, 

l7l^ 0 ? OZ L < _ 


f 7 ^/Zo^o <xt 


O£:o:]oa-a>d45® 0 

? $© 8 ■ 
i o o p h , * f 


5 l2^$io 8 * 



Sect. III. § 4 .] Containing the New Testament . 

has all those irregular readings which, in his Commentaries on the 
Acts, he says were in his book ; and no other manuscript is now 
found to have them. There is an extraordinary coincidence between 
it and the old Syriac version of the Acts of the Apostles. Wetstein 
conjectures, from an edict of a Sardinian prince, Flavius Pancratius, 
written at the end of this manuscript, and from several other circum- 
stances, that it was written in Sardinia in the seventh century. To 
this conjecture Michaelis is disposed to accede, though Dr. Woide 
supposed it to have been written in the East, because its orthography 
has several properties observable in the Codex Alexandrinus. But 
as these peculiarities are also found in other very antient manuscripts, 
Bishop Marsh considers them as insufficient to warrant the inference, 
especially when we reflect on the great improbability that a Greek 
manuscript written in the East should be accompanied with a Latin 
translation. It will be seen from the annexed fac-simile x , which re- 
presents the chief part of Acts vii. 2,, that this Latin translation, con- 
trary to the usual arrangement of the Greek-Latin manuscripts, occu- 
pies the first column of the page. Only one word (or a^ihe utmost, 
two or three words, and that but seldom,) is written in a line, and in 
uncial or capital letters ; and they are so written that each Latin 
word is always opposite to the correspondent Greek word. Hence 
it is evident, that the manuscript was written for the use of a person 
who was not well skilled in both languages ; and as the Latin occu- 
pies the first column, this circumstance is an additional evidence that 
it was written in the West of Europe, where Latin only was spoken. 
For the satisfaction of the English reader, the verse in question is 
subjoined in common Roman and Greek capitals, with the corre- 
sponding literal English in a third column. 

Ad idle ait 

Oae e$h 

And he said 














0 02 
















With regard to the date of this manuscript ; — Mr. Astfe refers it 
the beginning of the fifth century ; Griesbach to the seventh, or 
^eighth f and Mr. Hearne to the eighth cent ury. ^B ut from the shape 
^SPthedetters and other circumstances, BMidpTSlarsh; prc^unces it 
be4e$s antienf than the Codex Bezae, w#ch4^s written the fifth 
century. Probably the end of the sixth or the former part of the 
seventh century may be assigned as the date of the Codex Laudi- 

1 It is copied from Mr. Astle’s work on the Origin of Writing, Plate iv. 


Account of the principal Manuscripts [Part I. Ch. III. 

anus 3. This manuscript is of great value : Michaelis pronounces 
it to be indispensable to every man who would examine the import- 
ant question 5 whether the Codices Grseco-Latini have been corrupted 
from the Latin, and adds, that it was this manuscript which convinced 
him that this charge is without foundation. 1 

VIII. The Codex Coislinianus, H. of Griesbacb’ s notation is a 
very beautiful MS. of the sixth century, containing fragments of St. 
Paul's Epistles : it is written in uncial characters, with accents ; and 
was formerly kept at mount Athos, where it was applied, as old parch- 
ment, to the binding of other books, in the year 1218 ; as appears in 
a note of the book to the binding of which it was applied. 2 

IX. The Codex Boerimerianus derives its name from Dr. C. F. 
Boerner, to whom it formerly belonged, and is now deposited in the 
royal library at Dresden. It is noted by the letter G. 2. by Wet- 
stein and Griesbacb. It contains St. Paul's Epistles, with the ex- 
ception of that to the Hebrews, which was formerly rejected by the 
church of Rome ; and is written in Greek and Latin, the Latin or 
old Ante-Hieronymian version being interlined between the Greek, 
and written over the text, of which it is a translation. Semler sup- 
posed that the Latin was written since the Greek; but Professor 
Matthaei, who published a copy of this manuscript, suggests that the 
uniformity of the hand-writing, and similarity in the colour of the ink, 
evince that both the Greek and Latin texts proceeded from the same 
transcriber. It frequently agrees with the Codex Claromontanus 
(described in pp. 137, 138. supra), and with the Codex Augiensis, of 
which a notice is given in p. 147. infra . The time when this manu- 
script was written has not been determined with precision. That it 
is antient, appears (says Michaelis) from the form of the characters, 
and the absence of accents and marks of aspiration. It seems to have 
been written in ail age when the transition was making from uncial 
to small characters ; and from the correspondence of the letters r, s 9 
and if, in the Latin version to that form which is found in the Anglo- 
Saxon alphabet. Bishop Marsh infers, that this manuscript was writ- 
ten in the west of Europe, and probably between the eighth and tenth 
centuries. Kuster, who first collated this manuscript, supposed it 
to be British $ Doederlein, Irish. The learned reviewer of Matthau's 
edition of this manuscript, in the Jena Literary Gazette, decides that 
it could only be written in Germany or France ; because in the mar- 
gin many passages are noted contra yolhcrxctXxov, apparently because 
they are contradictory to the opinion of Gottschalk, a celebrated 
monk, who disputed concerning predestination in the ninth century, 
but whose tenets excited little attention except in those two countries. 
The writer in question thinks it probable that this manuscript was 
written by Johannes Scot us, who lived at the court of Charles the 
Bald, king of France, and was the most celebrated opponent of 

1 Griesbacb, Symb. Crit. tom, ii. pp. 1 SI — 183. Michaelis, vol.ii. parti. pp. 269 — 
274. partii. pp.7-17, 74S. Dr. Woitle, Praefat. ad Cod. Alcxandr. pp. xxvi. — xxviii. 
§§ 76— -SI. Astle on the Origin of Writing, p,7G. 2d edit. The Greek and Latin text 
of the Codex Laudianus was printed at Oxford in Svo. in 1715, by the celebrated anti- 
quary, Thomas Hearne, with a specimen of the original characters. 

* Hug’s Introduction, vol i. p. 288. 

Sect. III. § 4.] Containing the Ne'w Testament . 145 

Gottschalk. The manuscript, however, could not have been written 
later than the ninth century, for in the beginning of the tenth, Gotts- 
chalk’s dispute had lost all its importance. Griesbach and Hug ac- 
cordingly refer the Codex Boernerianus to the ninth or tenth cen- 
tury. There is a transcript of this MS. in the library of Trinity 
College, Cambridge, among the books and manuscripts that were 
left by Dr. Bentley, who probably procured it for his intended edi- 
tion of the Greek Testament. Professor Matthasi published a copy 
of this manuscript at Meissen in Saxony, in 1791, in quarto, which 
was reprinted at the same place in 1818, also in quarto. 1 

X. The Codex Cypiuus, or Colbertinus, 5149,, noted K. in the 
first volume of Wetstein’s and Griesbach’s editions of the Greek 
Testament, is a copy of the four Gospels, brought from the island 
of Cyprus in the year 1637; and now deposited in the Royal Li- 
brary at Paris, where it is at present numbered 33. This manuscript 
was first collated by Father Simon 2 , whose extracts of various read- 
ings were inserted by Dr. Mill in his critical edition of the New 
Testament. 3 Wetstein charged this manuscript with latinising, but 
without sufficient evidence. Michaelis deemed it to be of great value, 
and expressed a wish for a more accurate collation of it. That wish 
was not realised until the year 1819, when Dr. J. M. A. Scholz, of 
Heidelberg, being at Paris, subjected this manuscript to a very 
rigorous critical examination, the results of which he communicated 
to the public in his Cures Critic a' in Historiam Textns Evangcliorwn 
(4to. Heidelbergm, 1820): from this work the following particulars 
are abridged. 

This manuscript is written on vellum, in an oblong quarto size, 
and in excellent preservation. The uncial characters are not round, 
as in most antient manuscripts, but leaning; they exhibit evident 
marks of haste and sometimes of carelessness in the transcriber, and 
they present the same abbreviations as occur in the Alexandrian, 
Vatican, and other manuscripts. In a few instances, accents are 
absent, but frequently they are incorrectly placed ; the spirits (asper 
and lenis) are often interchanged ; and the permutations of vowels 
and consonants are very numerous. Thus we meet with xcaxpu pLpsvco 
lor xexpvppsvoo (Matt. xiii. 44.) ; sASsj for (Markiv. 22.); pa/3j3st 
for puf 3/3* (Matt, xxiii. 7. xxvi. 25. 49, &c.) ; oxoSopt^ro for caxo^o^ro 
(Luke iv. 29.); tovtcq for touto (Lukeviii. 9.); Aafficuov for Gafficaov; 
sxocdsufiov for sxa&suSov (Matt. xxv. 5.); Na^aps-S for Na^apsr (Mark 
i. 9.) &c. From the confused and irregular manner in which the 
accents and spirits are placed, Dr. Scholz conjectures that the Codex 
Cyprius was transcribed from a more antient copy that was nearly 
destitute of those distinctions. Some of the permutations are un- 
questionably errors of the transcriber, but the greater part of them, 
he is of opinion, must be referred to the orthography and pronun- 

1 Kuster’s preface to bis edition or" Mill’s Greek Testament, sub finem. Michaelis, 
vol. ii. parti, pp. 225— 227. paVtii. pp. 672 — 677. Jena Algemeine Litteratur Zeitung, 
as abridged in the Analytical Review for 1793, vol. xvii, p. 231. Hug’s Introduction, 
vol. i. pp. 283 — 286. * •*. 

- Histoire Critique du Texte du Nouveau Testament, ch. x, p. 104. 

3 Nov. Test. Millii et Kusteri Prolegom. p. 162. 

tOL. II. L 

146 Account of the principal Manuscripts [Part I. Ch. III. 

ciation which (it is well known) were peculiar to the Alexandrians. 
To this manuscript are prefixed a synaxarium or epitome of the 
lives of the Saints, who are venerated by the Greek church, and a 
menologium or martyrology, together with the canons of Eusebius : 
to each of the three last Gospels is also prefixed an index of the 
Tcs^otKaaoL or larger chapters. The numbers of the Ammonian sec- 
tions and larger chapters are marked in the inner margin ; and the 
numbers of the other chapters, together with the titles, are placed 
either at the top or at the bottom of the page. The Gospel of St. 
Matthew comprises 359 Ammonian sections, and 68 chapters; that 
of St. Mark, 241 sections, and 48 chapters; that of St. Luke, 342 
sections and 83 chapters ; and the Gospel of St. John, 232 sec- 
tions, and 19 chapters. The celebrated passage in John viii. 1 — II,, 
concerning the woman who had been taken in adultery, constitutes 
a distinct chapter. From the occasional notation of certain days, on 
which particular portions were to be read, as well as from the pre- 
fixing of the synaxarium and menologium, Dr. Scholz considers 
this manuscript as having originally been written, and constantly 
used, for ecclesiastical purposes. 

A considerable difference of opinion prevails, respecting the age 
of the Codex Cyprius. Simon referred it to the tenth century: 
Hug, to the ninth century ; Dr. Mill thought it still later; Mont- 
faucon assigned it to the eighth century, and with his opinion Dr. 
Scholz coincides, from the general resemblance of the writing to that 
of other manuscripts of the same date. Specimens of its characters 
have been given by Mon tfau con 1 2 , Blanchini 3 , and Dr. Scholz. 4 Our 
fac-simile in Plate 3. No. 3. 5 is copied from the last-mentioned writer : 
it contains part of the first verse of the twenty-eighth chapter of St. 
Matthew’s Gospel, in English thus: 



This manuscript is of considerable importance in a critical point 
of view, particularly as it affords great weight to the readings of the 
best and most antient MSS., antient versions, and the’ father s;. 6 

XI. The Codex Basileensis, B. VI. 21., noted by Dr. Mill, B. 1., 
by Bengel, Bas. and by Wetstein-and Griesbach, E., is a manu- 

1 See an account of these divisions in pp. 169, 170. infra, 

2 Palseographia Graeca, p. 232. 

3 Evangeliarium Quadruplex, Part I. p. 492. plate 3. from that page. 

4 At the end of his Cura) Criticae in Historiam Textus Evangel iorum. In pp.SO — 90. 
Dr. Scholz has given the Jirst entire collation ever published, of the Various Readings con- 
tained in the Codex Cyprius. 

5 This plate faces page 132. supra . 

6 Dr. Scholz (Cur. Cnt. pp. 63 — 65.) has given several instances of such readings, 
one only of which we have room to notice. In John vii. 8. the Codex Cyprius reads ovic 
avaPatvw, which in later manuscripts is altered to ounce ava&cuvca, because the celebrated 
antagonist of Christianity, Porphyry, had used it as a ground of objection. With the 
Codex Cyprius agree the Cambridge Manuscript, the Codices Regii, 14. (33. of Gries- 
baeh’s notation,) and 55. (17. of Griesbach), several of the Moscow manuscripts cited by 
Matthsei, the Memphitic and Ethiopic versions, together with several of the Ante-Hiero- 
nymian versions, and, among the fathers, Jerome, Augustine, Cyril, Chrysostom, and 
Epiphanius. This reading alone proves that the Codex Cyprius has not been altered from 
the Latin, as Wetstcin asserted without any authority. 


Sect. III. § 4.] Containing the Netv Testament. 

script of the four Gospels, written in uncial letters, in the eighth or 
(more probably) ninth century. It is mutilated in Luke i. 69. — ii. 4., 
iii. 4 — 15., xii. 58. — xiii. 12., xv. 8 — 20.; and xxiv. 47. to the end 
of the Gospels : but the chasms in Luke i. 69. — ii. 4., xii. 58. — 
xiii. 12., and xv. 8 — 20. have been filled up by a later hand. This 
manuscript was not used by Erasmus ; but it was collated by Samuel 
Battier for Dr. Mill, who highly valued it ; by Iselin, for BengeFs 
edition of the New Testament ; and by Wetstein, who has given its 
readings in his edition. 1 

XII. The Codex San- Germane ns is (noted E. 2. in the second 
volume of Wetstein’s edition of the New Testament) is a Greek- 
Latin manuscript of St. Paul’s Epistles, written in the seventh cen- 
tury, in uncial letters, and with accents and marks of aspiration, a 
prima manu. It has been generally supposed to be a mere copy of 
the Codex Claromontanus (described in pp. 137. supra ); but this 
opinion is questioned by Dr. Semler, in his critical examination of 
this manuscript, who has produced many examples,, from which it 
appears that if the transcriber of it actually had the Clermont MS. 
before him, he must at least have selected various readings from 
other manuscripts. Bishop Marsh, therefore, considers the San- 
Gerrnanensis as a kind of Codex Eclecticus , in writing which the Cler- 
mont MS. was principally but not at all times consulted. The manu- 
script now under consideration takes its name from the monastery of 
St. Germain- des-Prez, in Paris, in whose library it was formerly pre- 
served. Dr. Mill first procured extracts from it, for his edition of 
the New Testament, where it is noted by the abbreviation Ger. for Ger- 
manensis. By Wetstein, it is noted E 2., and by Griesbaeh E. 

According to Montfaucon, there is also extant another more 
antient Codex San-Germanensis of St. Paul’s Epistles, which has 
never been collated. It is a fragment, containing only thirteen 
leaves; and is supposed to be as antient as the fifth century. 2 * 

XIII. The Codex Augiensis is a Greek- Latin manuscript of 
St. Paul’s Epistles; it derives its name from the monastery of Augia 
major, at Rheinau, to which it belonged in the fifteenth century. 
After passing through various hands, it was purchased by the cele- 
brated critic, Dr. Richard Bentley, in 1718; and in 1787, on the 
death of the younger Bentley, it was deposited in the library of 
Trinity College, Cambridge. This manuscript is defective from 
the beginning to Rom. iii. 8., and the epistle to the Hebrews is 
found only in the Latin version. Hug assigns it to the latter half of 
the ninth, or to the tenth century, and Michaelis to the ninth cen- 
tury, which (Bishop Marsh remarks) is the utmost that can be allowed 
to its antiquity. The Greek text is written in uncial letters without 
accents, and the Latin in Anglo-Saxon characters : it has been col- 

1 Marsh’s Michaelis, vol. ii. parti, pp. 217, 218. Hug’s Introd. vol.i. pp. 289 
— 294. 

2 Michaelis, vol. ii, parti, p, 314. partii. pp. 784, 785. ; Hug, vol.i. p. 2S2. 
Montfaueon’s Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum, tom. ii. p. 1041. In his Palaeographia 
Graeca, he has given a lac-simile of the Greek and Latin characters of the Codex San- 
Germanensis, Another fac-simile of them is given by Blanchini, in his Evangeliarimn 
Quadruplex, vol. i. in the last of the Plates annexed to p. 533. 

L 2 

148 Accomt of the principal Manuscripts [Part I. Ch. III. 

lated by Wetstein, who has noted the Codex Augiensis with the 
letter F. in the second part of his edition of the New Testament. In 
many respects it coincides with the Codex Boernerianus, and belongs 
to the Western Recension. The words Xpi?og (Christ), and lytrovg 
(Jesus) are not abbreviated by XC and IC, as in the common ma- 
nuscripts, but by XPC and IHC, as in the Codex Bezae. 1 

XIV. The Codex Harleianus, No. 5598., is a most splendid 
Evangeliarium, or collection of lessons from the four Gospels, un- 
known to Dr. Griesbach ; it is written on vellum, in uncial Greek 
letters, which are gilt on the first leaf, and coloured and ornamented 
throughout the rest of the book. It consists of seven hundred and 
forty-eight pages; and according 1o an inscription on the last page, 
was written by one Constantine, a presbyter, a. d. 995. To several 
of the longer sections, titles are prefixed in larger characters. The 
passages of the Gospels are noted in the margin, as they occur, by a 
later hand, and between pages 7 26. and 729., there are inserted ten 
leaves of paper, containing the series of Lessons or Extracts from 
the Gospels, which are supposed to have been written by Dr. Coveil, 
who was chaplain to the British Embassy at Constantinople a.d. 1670 
— 1677, and was a diligent collector of MSS. In Plate 3. No. 2. is given 
a fac-simile 2 of the third page of this precious manuscript. It repre- 
sents the eighteenth verse of the first chapter of Saint John’s Gospel. 
We have annexed the same passage in ordinary Greek types, together 
with a literal English Version, in parallel columns. 


PAKEmmOTE- __ 











The lines of this venerable MS. are not all of equal length, some 
containing ten, others ten or more letters in each line. The same 

contractions of 02 for 0egs (God), FTP for Harris (Father), Y2 for 
Yi o$ (a son), &c. which occur in all the most antient Greek manu- 
scripts, are also to be seen in this evangeliarium. As it has never 
yet been collated, it is highly worthy of the attention of future editors 
of the New Testament. 

XV. The Codex Regius,. 2861., at present 62 y\, (or the eighth 
of the manuscripts collated by Robert Stephens,) is a quarto manu- 
script, on vellum, of the ninth century, and written in uncial letters 
of an oblong form. The accents are frequently wanting, and are 
often wrongly placed, even when they are inserted, from which cir- 
cumstance Griesbach thinks that this manuscript was transcribed 
from another very antient one, which had no accents. Each page 

1 Michaelis, vol. ii. parti, pp. 210, 211. part ii. pp. 664, 665. Hug, vol. i, 

|>p. 286 — 288. 

9 This plate faces page 132, supra. 

Sect. III. §4.] Containing the New Testament . 149 

is divided into two columns, and the words follow, for the most part, 
without any intervals between them. The iota subscriptum, and 
postscriptum, are uniformly wanting: the usual abbreviations occur, 
and the letters AT and OT are sometimes written with contractions, 
as in the Codex Coislinianus 1. (a manuscript of the eighth century); 
and not seldom a letter is dropped in the middle of a word : — Thus, 
we read in it 7r«pa/3>o) for iratpct^oy y.q, x\Y}(rsrai for nXySyo-ercu, xocrp w- 
pe vos for xcirapoofrEvoS) &c. &c. Errors in orthography appear in 
every page, and also permutations of vowels and consonants. This 
manuscript contains the four Gospels, with the following chasms, 
viz. Matt. iv. 21. — v. 14. and xxviii. 17. to the end of the Gospel; 
Mark x. 17 — 30. and xv. 10 — 20.; and John xxi. 15. to the end. 
The mXoi and the Ammonian sections with reference to the canons 
of Eusebius are written in the Codex Regius a primd manu. It is 
noted L. by Wetstein, and also by Griesbach 1 , who has given a very 
complete and accurate collation of its various readings in his Sym- 
bols Criticae. This manuscript harmonises with the Alexandrine 
or Western Recension. 

XVI. The Codex Uffenbachianus 2., (1. of Bengel’s notation, 
and No. 53. of Wetstein’ s and Griesbach’s catalogues of manuscripts,) 
is a fragment of the Epistle to the Hebrews, consisting of two leaves : 
it is at present preserved in the public library at Hamburgh. Having 
been very imperfectly described by Maius, Wetstein, and Bengel, 
Dr. H. P. C. Henke rendered an important service to biblical liter- 
ature by subjecting it to a minute critical examination, the result of 
which he published at Helmstadt, in 1800, in a quarto tract, with a 
fac-simile of the writing. 2 According to this writer, the Codex 
Uffenbachianus originally consisted of one ternion, or six leaves, of 
which the four middle ones are lost. It is wholly written in red un- 
cial characters, slightly differing from the square form observable in 
the most antient manuscripts. The accents and notes of aspiration 
are carefully marked, but the iota subscriptum nowhere occurs : nor 
are any stops or minor marks of distinction to be seen, except the 
full stop, which is promiscuously placed at the bottom, in the middle, 
or at the top of a page, to serve as a comma, a colon, or a full point. 
The note of interrogation occurs only once, viz. in Heb. iii. 17. after 
the word py^co ; but there are scarcely any abbreviations beside those 
which we have already noticed as existing in the Alexandrian and 
other antient manuscripts. It is remarkable, that the first verse of 
the second chapter is wanting in this manuscript, which is character- 
ised by some peculiar readings. M. von Uffenbach, who was its first 
known possessor, referred it to the seventh or eight century. Wet- 
stein asserted it to have been written in the eleventh century ; but, 
on comparing it with the specimens of manuscripts engraved by 
Montfaucon and Blanchini, we are of opinion with Dr. Henke, that 

t Griesbach’s Symbol© Critic©, tom.i. pp. Ixvi. — cxli. Michaelis, vol.ii. parti, 

pp. 304 — 306. partii. pp. 778, 779. Hug, vol. i. p. 294. 

2 Dr. Henke's publication and fac-simile are reprinted by Pott and Ruperti, in their 
Sylloge Commentationum Theologicarum, vol. ii. pp. 1 — S3. Helmstadt, 1801 j from 
which our account of the Codex Uffenbachianus is abridged. 

L 3 


Account of the principal Manuscripts [Part I. Ch. III. 

it was executed in the ninth century. In its readings, the Codex 
Uffenbachianus sometimes approximates to the Alexandrine, and 
sometimes to the Western Recension. 

XVII. The Codices Manners- Suttoniani are a choice collec- 
tion of manuscripts, in the archiepiscopal library at Lambeth, which 
have been purchased, and presented to that library by his Grace the 
present Archbishop. They are principally the collection made by 
the Rev. J. D. Carlyle, Professor of Arabic in the university of Cam- 
bridge, during his travels in the East, with a view to a critical edition 
of the New Testament, with various readings ; which however was 
never undertaken, in consequence of his lamented decease . 1 Of 
these manuscripts (which are chiefly of the New Testament) the fol- 
lowing are particularly worthy of notice, on account of the harvest 
of various lections which they may be expected to afford. 

1. No. 1175 is a manuscript of the four Gospels, written on vellum, in 
quarto, towards the end of the eleventh or at the beginning of the twelfth 
century. The two first verses of the first chapter of Saint Matthew's 
Gospel are wanting. At the end of this manuscript, on a single leaf, 
there are part of the last verse of the seventh chapter of Saint John’s 
Gospel and the first eleven verses of the eighth chapter. 

2. No. 1176 is another manuscript of the four Gospels, on vellum, in 
quarto, written in the twelfth century. On the first leaf there are some 
figures painted and gilt, which have nearly disappeared from age. This 
is followed by the chapters of the four Gospels. 

3. No. 1177 is a manuscript of the four Gospels, on vellum, of the 
twelfth century, which is very much mutilated in the beginning. 

No. 1178 contains the four Gospels, most beautifully written on 
vellum, in quarto, in the tenth century. The first seven verses and 
part of the eighth verse of the first chapter of Saint Matthew's Gospel 
are wanting. 

5. No. 1179 contains the four Gospels, mutilated at the beginning and 
end. It is on vellum, in quarto, of the twelfth century. 

6—8. Nos. 1182, 1183, and 1185, are manuscripts, containing the Acts 
of the Apostles, the Catholic Epistles, and the whole of Saint Paul’s 
Epistles. They are all written in quarto and on paper. No. 1182 is of the 
twelfth century : the conclusion of St. John’s First Epistle, and the sub- 
sequent part of this manuscript to the end, have been added by a later 
hand. No. 1183 is of the fourteenth century. No. 1185 is of the fifteenth 
century, and is mutilated at the end. 

9. No. 1186 is a quarto manuscript on vellum, written in the eleventh 
century, and contains the Epistles of Saint Paul and the Apocalypse. 
It is unfortunately mutilated at the beginning and end. It commences 
with Rom. xvi. 15. .... 7cav (that is, OXvjAirav) kxi t ovq c rvv avTMi; vta.v rag 
ayiovi ;, — .... pas (that is, Olympas) and all the saints 'which are with 
them: and it ends with the words, s%i rco ftpovu Xeyovrsq A f/.v\v, — on the 
throne , saying , Amen . Rev. xix.4?. The Rev. H. J. Todd has given a 
fac-simile of this precious manuscript in his catalogue of the manuscripts 
in the archiepiscopal library at Lambeth. 

i Six of these precious MSS. having been reclaimed by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, as 
having been lent only to Professor Carlyle; they were returned to him in 1817, by his 
Grace the Archbishop or Canterbury. Full particulars relative to this transaction, so 
honourable to the noble and munificent character of the Primate of all England, may be 
seen in the Rev. H. J, Todd’s “ Account of Greek Manuscripts, chiefly Biblical, which 
had been in the possession of the late Professor Carlyle, the greater part of which are now- 
deposited in the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth Palace.” London. [1818.] 8vo. 

Sect. III. § 4.] Containing the New Testament . 151 

10 — 12. Nos. 1187 — 1189 are lectionaries from the four Gospels, writ- 
ten on vellum in the thirteenth century. 

13. No. 1190 is a manuscript on vellum written with singular neatness, 
in the thirteenth century. Formerly it contained the Acts of the Apostles, 
and the Catholic Epistles, together with the whole of Saint Paul’s Epistles. 

It is sadly mutilated and torn, both in the middle and at the end. 

14. No. 1191 is a lectionary, from the Acts of the Apostles and the 
Epistles. It is on vellum, in quarto, of the thirteenth century. It is mu- 
tilated both at the beginning and end. All the preceding manuscripts 
were brought by Professor Carlyle from the Greek islands. 

15 — 17. Nos. 1194, 1195, and 1196 are lectionaries from the Acts of 
the Apostles and Epistles. They are on vellum, in quarto, and were 
written in the thirteenth century. No. 1194 is mutilated at the end: the 
writing of this manuscript is singularly neat, and many of the letters are 
gilt. No. 1 195 is also mutilated at the beginning, and No. 1 196 at the end. 

18. No. 1192 is a very beautiful manuscript of the four Gospels, in 
quarto, written on vellum in the thirteenth century. 

19. No. 1193 is a lectionary from the four Gospels, also written on 
vellum, in the thirteenth century. It is mutilated at the end. The six 
last manuscripts, Nos. 1191 — 1196 were brought from Syria. 1 

XVIII. The Codices Mos^uenses, or Moscow manuscripts, are 
fifty-five in number. They were discovered by M. Matthaei, while 
he was a professor in that city, principally in the library belonging 
to the Holy Synod ; and were collated by him with great accuracy. 
The principal various readings, derived from them, are printed in 
his edition of the Greek Testament, of which a notice is given in p.18. 
of the Appendix to this volume. Though these MSS. are not of the * 
highest antiquity, yet they are far from being modern, since some 
of them were written in the eighth, several in the tenth or eleventh, 
and many in the twelfth century. As the Russian is a daughter of 
the Greek church, Michaelis remarks that the Moscow manuscripts 
very frequently contain the readings of the Byzantine recension, 
though he has observed many readings that were usual not only in 
the west of Europe, but also in Egypt. Of the Codices Mosquenses, 
there are three, which Matthaei designates by the letters V. H. and 
B., and to which he gives a high character for antiquity, correctness, 
and agreement : they are all written in uncial characters. The ma- 
nuscript V. contains the four Gospels ; from John vii. 39. to the end 
is the writing of the twelve or thirteenth century : the preceding part 
is of the eighth century. It is written with accents, and is regularly 
pointed throughout. B. is an Evangeliarium or collection of the 
four Gospels, of the same date : H. is also an Evangeliarium, and, 
in the judgment of Matthaei, the most antient manuscript known to 
be extant in Europe. V. and H. were principally followed by him 
in forming the text of his edition of the New Testament. 2 

XIX. The Codex Brixiensis or Brixianus is a precious manu- 

1 Catalogue of the MSS. in the Archiepiscopal Library, at Lambeth, by the Rev. H. 
J. Todd, pp. 261, 262. folio, London, 1812, 

s Michaelis, vol. ii. parti, pp. 288, 289. partii. pp. 763 — 767. In Beck’s Mono- 
grammata Hermeneutices Librorum Novi Testamenti (pp. 67 — 71. 98.) and Griesbach’s 
second edition of the Greek Testament (pp. cxxiii — csxvi.), there are lists of the Moscow 
manuscripts. Prof. Matthaei has also given notices of them with occasional lac-similes, 
in the different volumes of his edition of the Greek Testaihent. 

L 4 


Account of the principal Manuscripts [Part I. Ch. Ill* 

script of the Old Italic (Latin) Version executed in the eighth century, 
preserved at Brescia, in Lombardy. It is an oblong quarto, written 
in uncial characters, on purple vellum, which in the lapse of time 
has faded to a bluish tinge. The letters were written with ink, and 
subsequently silvered over. The initial words of each Gospel have 
been traced with gold, vestiges of which are still visible. The letters 
O. and V., T. and D., are frequently interchanged, and especially 
the letters B. and V. To the Gospels are prefixed the Eusebian 
Canons. 1 The Codex Brixiensis is very frequently referred to by 
Mr. Nolan in his “ Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate 
or received Text of the New Testament,” on account of its antiquity 
and importance, in vindicating the integrity of that text. It is printed 
by Blanchini in his Evangeliarum Quadruplex. 

XN. Besides the preceding manuscripts, which (with few excep- 
tions) are written in square or uncial characters, there are many 
others written in small letters, , which are quoted by Griesbach and 
other critics, by Arabic numerals, 1, 2, 3, &c. ; and which, though 
not equal in point of antiquity with several of those in uncial letters, 
are nevertheless of great value and importahce, and frequently ex- 
hibit readings not inferior to those contained in the foregoing manu- 
scripts. Of this description are the following ; viz. 

1. The Codex Basileensis, (noted by Bengel Bas- y, and by Wet- 
stein and Griesbach 1, throughout their editions,) contains the whole 
of the New Testament, except the Revelation, and is written on vel- 
lum with accents. On account of the subscriptions and pictures 
which are found in it, (one of which appears to be a portrait of the 
emperor Leo, surnamed the Wise, and his son Constantine Porphy- 
rogennetus, ) Wetstein conjectures that it was written in their time, 
that is, in the tenth century. Michaelis and Griesbach have acceded 
to this opinion. Erasmus, who made use of it for his edition of the 
Greek Testament, supposed it to be a latinising manuscript, and his 
supposition was subsequently adopted by Wetstein ; but Michaelis 
has vindicated it from this charge, and asserts that it is intitled to 
very great esteem. According to Hug, the text of the Gospels is 
very different from the text of the other parts of the book. 2 3 

2. The Codex Berolinensis is a quarto manuscript, on vellum, 
of the tenth century, preserved in the Royal Library at Berlin. It 
contains the following fragments ; viz. Matt. i. 1 — 21. ; vi. 12 — 32. ; 
and xxii. 6. to the end of that Gospel ; Mark i. 1 — 5. 29. ; ix. 21. — 
xiii, 12, ; Luke viii. 27. to the end of the Gospel ; John i. 1. — ix. 21. 
and xx. 15. to the end of the Gospel. The various readings com- 
prised in this manuscript were published by M. Pappelbaum, arch- 
deacon of Berlin, in his description of it ; whence they have been 
inserted by M. Dermout in his Collectanea Critica in Novum Tes- 
tamentmn and by Dr. Schulz (who numbers it 239) in his third 
edition of Griesbach’s Greek Testament. 

3. The Codex Corse ndoncensis, which is in the Imperial Li- 

1 Blanchini Evangeliarum Quadruplex, tom. i. Prolegomena, pp. 1—40. 

2 Hug, vol. i. pp. 297, 298. 

3 Dermout, Collectanea Critica, p. 22. 


Sect. III. § 4.] Containing the New Testament . 

brary at Vienna, is noted 3 by Wetstein and Griesbach. It was used 
by Erasmus for his second edition, and contains the whole of the 
New Testament, except the book of Revelation. It appears to have 
been written in the twelfth century, and by an ignorant transcriber, 
who has inserted marginal notes into the text. Wetstein charges it 
with being altered from the Latin. 

4. The Codex Montfortianus or Montfortii, also' called 
Dublinensis (61 of Griesbach), is a manuscript containing the whole 
of the New Testament, preserved in the library of Trinity College, 
Dublin, to which it was presented by Archbishop Usher. It derives 
its name of Montfortianus from having belonged to Dr. Montfort, 
previously to coming into Usher’s possession. It has acquired much 
celebrity as being supposed to be the only manuscript which has the 
much-contested clause in 1 John v. 7, 8, and is the same which was cited 
by Erasmus under the title of Codex Britannicus , who inserted the dis- 
puted passage in the third edition of his Greek Testament on its au- 
thority. It is written in small Greek characters on thick glazed paper, 
in duodecimo, and without folios. Dr. A. Clarke (to whom we are 
indebted for the fac-simile which is given in a subsequent part of 
this work 1 ) is of opinion that it was most probably written in the 
thirteenth century, from the similarity of its writing to that of other 
manuscripts of the same time. He has no doubt but it existed before 
the invention of printing, and is inclined to think it the work of an 
unknown bold critic, who formed a text from one or more manu- 
scripts in conjunction with the Latin Vulgate, and who was by no 
means sparing of his own conjectural emendations, as it possesses 
various readings which exist in no manuscript yet discovered. But 
how far the writer has in any place faithfully copied the text of any 
particular antient manuscript, is more than can be determined. In 
tlie early part of the last century Mr. Martin claimed for this manu- 
script so early a date as the eleventh century. But Bishop Marsh, 
after Griesbach, contends that it is at least as modern as the fifteenth 
or sixteenth century. The Codex Montfortianus, he observes, “ made 
its appearance about the year 1520: and that the manuscript had 
just been written, when it first appeared, is highly probable, because 
it appeared at a critical juncture, and its appearance answered a par- 
ticular purpose, 2 But, whether written for the occasion or not, it 
could not have been written very long before the sixteenth century ; 

1 See Vol. IV. Part II. Chap. IV. Sect, V. § VI. infra. 

2 “Erasmus had published two editions of the Greek Testament, one in 1516, the 
other in 1519, both of which were without the words, that begin with svroa ovpam and 
end with ry\ 777, in the disputed clause in 1 John v. 7, 8. This omission , as it was 
called by those who paid more deference to the Latin translation than to the Greek 
original, exposed Erasmus to much censure, though, in fact, the complaint was for nan- 
addition. Erasmus, therefore, very properly answered ; e Addendi de meo, quod Graccis 
deest, provinciam non suscepcram.’ He promised, however, that though he could not 
insert in a Greek edition what he had never fipund In a Greek manuscript, he would 
insert the passage in his next edition, if in the mean time a Greek MS. could be dis- 
covered which had the passage. In less than a year after that declaration, Erasmus was 
informed, that there was a Greek MS. in England which contained the passage. At the 
same time a copy of the passage, as contained in that MS., was communicated to Eras- 
mus : and Erasmus, as he had promised, inserted that copy in his next edition, which was 
published in 1522.** 


Account of the principal Manuscripts [Part I. Ch. III. 

for this manuscript has the Latin chapters, though the of 

Eusebius are likewise noted. Now the Latin chapters were foreign 
to the usage of the Greek Church, before the introduction of printed 
editions, in which the Latin chapters were adopted, as well for the 
Greek as for the Latin Testament. Whatever Greek manuscripts 
therefore were written with Latin Chapters, were written in the West 
of Europe, where the Latin Chapters were in use. They were 
written by the Greeks, or by the descendants of those Greeks, who 
fled into the West of Europe, after the taking of Constantinople, 
and who then began to divide their manuscripts according to the 
usage of the country, in which they fixed their abode. 1 The Dublin 
manuscript, therefore, if not written for the purpose to which it was 
applied in the third edition of Erasmus 2 3 , could hardly have been 
written more than fifty years before. And how widely those critics 
have erred in their conjectures, who have supposed that it was wi’itten 
so early as the twelfth century, appears from the fact that the Latin 
Chapters were not invented till the 13th century. 0 But the influence 
of the Church of Rome in the composition of the Dublin manuscript, 
is most conspicuous in the i text of that manuscript, which is a servile 
imitation of the Latin Vulgate. It will be sufficient to mention how 
it follows the Vulgate at the place in question. It not only agrees 
with the Vulgate, in the insertion of the seventh verse : it follows the 
Vulgate also at the end of the sixth verse, having ^pjerror, where all 
other Greek manuscripts have Trvsupta. : and in the eighth verse it omits 
the final clause which had never been omitted in the Greek manu- 
scripts, and was not omitted even in the Latin manuscripts before the 
thirteenth century. 4 Such is the character of that solitary manu- 
script, which is opposed to the united evidence of all former manu- 
scripts, including the Codex Vatican us, and the Codex Alexan- 
driniis.” 5 Upon the whole, it does not appear that the date of the 
Codex Montfortianus can be earlier than the close of the fifteenth 
century. The uncollatcd parts of this manuscript were collated by 
the late Rev. Dr. Barrett, of Trinity College, Dublin, with Wetstein’s 
edition of the Greek Testament; beginning with Ptom. ii. and ending 
with the Apocalypse, including also a collation of the Acts of the 
Apostles, from chap. xxii. 27. to chap, xxviii. 2. This collation, 
comprising thirty-five pages, forms the third part of his fac-simile 
edition of the Codex Rescriptus of St. Matthew’s Gospel. 

5. The Codex Meermannianus derives its name from its former 

1 ct There are three Greek manuscripts with the Latin Chapters in the University 
Library at Cambridge, marked Hh. 6. 12. Kk, .5. 35. and LI. 2. 13. That which is 
marked LI. 2. 13., and is evidently the oldest of the three, was written at Paris by Jerom 
of Sparta, for the use and at the expence of a person called Bodet, as appears from the 
subscription to it. Now Jerom of Sparta died at the beginning of the sixteenth century.” 

- “The third edition of Erasmus lias 1 John v. 7. precisely in the words of the Dublin 

3 Sec p. 168. infra. 

4 «« Here there is an additional proof, respecting the age of the Dublin MS, ” 

6 Bishop Marsh’s Lectures, Part VI. pp. 23 — 26. See also his letters to Mr. Arch- 
deacon Travis, (Leipzig, 1795, 8vo ) Pref. pp. xvii. xviii. xxiii. in the notes. Michaelis 
vol. ii. parti, pp. 284 — 287.. part ii, pp. 755— 759. Dr. A. Clarke’s Succession of 
Sacred Literature, pp, 86 — 92. 


Sect. III. § 4.] Containing the New Testament . 

possessor M. Meerman, at the sale of whose library it was purchased 
by a private individual, but has since been deposited in the Library 
of the University of Leyden. It was written towards the close of the 
twelfth century, and contains the four Gospels, Acts, and all the 
Epistles; but it is defective in Acts i. 1 — 14. xxi. 14. — xxii. 28. 
Rom. i. — vii. 13. 1 John iv. 20. to the end; the second and third 
Epistles of John, and the Epistle of Jude. This manuscript was first 
collated by M. Dermout, in his Collectanea Critica in Novum Testa- 
mentum ; and the various readings discovered by him are incorporated 
by Dr. Schulz in his edition of Griesbach’s Greek Testament, where it 
is numbered 246. 1 

6. The Codex Regius, formerly 224 4. 2 at present 50., (noted 
Paris. 6. by Kuster, 13. by Wetstein, and % 13. by Griesbach,) is a 
manuscript of the four Gospels in the Royal Library at Paris. Though 
not more antient, probably, than the thirteenth century, it is pro- 
nounced by Michaelis to be of very great importance : it has the 
following chasms, which were first discovered by Griesbach, viz. 
Matt. i.l. — ii. 21.; xxvi. 33 — 53.; xxvii. 26. — xxviii. 10.; Mark i. 2. 
to the end of the chapter ; and John xxi. 2. to the end of the Gospel. 
The various* readings from this manuscript given by Kuster and 
Wetstein are very inaccurate. Matt. xiii. xiv. and xv. were the only 
three chapters actually collated by Griesbach, who expresses a wish 
that the whole manuscript might be completely and exactly collated, 
especially the latter chapters of the Gospels of Luke and John. In 
consequence of this manuscript harmonising in a very eminent man- 
ner with the quotations of Origen, he refers it to the Alexandrine 
edition, though he says it has a certain mixture of the Western. 2 

7- The Codex Leicestkensis derives its name from being the 
property of the Corporation of Leicester 3 : it is a manuscript of the 
whole New Testament, written by a modern hand, partly on paper, 
and partly on vellum, chiefly the former, and is referred by Wetstein 
and Griesbach to the fourteenth century. It is noted by Dr. Mill by 
the letter L., in the first part of Wetstein’s New Testament Codex, 
69.; in the second, 37.; in the third, 31. ; and in the fourth, 14.; and 
by Griesbach, 69. The book of Acts is inserted between the epistle 
to the Hebrews and that of Saint James. This manuscript is de- 
fective from the beginning as far as Matt, xviii. 15., and has also the 
following chasms, viz. Acts x. 45. — xiv. 7- Jude 7. to the end of that 
Epistle, and it concludes with part of Rev.xix. It has many peculiar 

1 Dermout, Collectanea Critica in N. T. Pars I. p. 14. 

- Michaelis, vol. i. parti, pp.502, 303. — Griesbach’s Symbols Critica;, vol. i. pp, cliv. 

- — clxiv. Nov, Test. vol. i. p. cv. 

3 In a critique on the second edition of this work, in the Eclectic Review for January, 
1822, (vol. xvii. N. S. p. 83.) it is stated, that when the writer of that article made en- 
quiry respecting the Codex Leicestrcnsis, it was no longer to be found in the Library of 
the Town Hall at Leicester. Anxious, for the interest of sacred literature, to ascertain 
the real fact, the author of the present work requested Mr. Combe (an eminent bookseller 
at, that place, to whom he thus gladly makes his acknowledgments,) to make the requisite 
investigation. The result of Mr. Combe’s critical researches is, that the Codex Leicestrensis 
is still carefully preserved, Mr. C. further collated the author’s account of it (which had 
been drawn up from the notices of Wetstein and Michaelis,) with the manuscript itself, 
and this collation has enabled him to make the description above given more complete as well 
as more correct . 

156 Account of the principal Manuscripts [Parti. Ch. III. 

readings; and in those which are not confined to it, this manuscript 
chiefly agrees with D. or the Codex Cantabrigiensis : it also harmo- 
nises in a very eminent manner with the old Syriac version ; and, 
what further proves its value, several readings, which Dr. Mill found 
in it alone, have been confirmed by other manuscripts that belong to 
totally different countries. The Codex Leicestrensis was first collated 
by him, and afterwards more accurately by Mr. Jackson, the learned 
editor of Novatian’s works, whose extracts were used by Wetstein. 
There is another and still more accurate transcript of Mr. J/s collation 
in his copy of Mill's edition of the Greek Testament, which is now 
preserved in the library of Jesus College, Cambridge, where it is 
marked O, 0, l. 1 

8. The Codex Vindobonensis, Lambecii SI. (124-. of Griesbach,) 
is a manuscript of the four Gospels, written in the eleventh or twelfth 
century : it has been collated by Treschow, Birch, and Alter. It is 
of very great importance, and agrees with the Codex Cantabrigiensis 
ill not less than eighty unusual readings ; with the Codex Ephremi 
in upwards of thirty-five; with the Codex Regius 2861., or Stephanie, 
in fifty; with the Codex Basileensis in more than fifty, and has 
several which are found in that manuscript alone ; with the Codex 
Regius 2244~, in sixty unusual readings; and with the Codex Col- 
bertinus 2844., in twenty-two. 2 * 4 

9. The Codex Ebnerianus is a very neat manuscript of the New 

Testament in quarto, formerly in the possession of Hieronymus 
Ebner Yon Eschenbach of that city, from whom its appellation is 
derived : it is now the property of the University of Oxford, and is 
deposited among the other precious manuscripts preserved in the 
Bodleian Library. The Codex Ebnerianus contains 4-25 leaves of 
vellum, and was written in the year 1391. The whole of the New 
Testament is comprised in this volume, excepting the Book of Re- 
velation : each page contains 27 lines, at equal distances, excepting 
those in which the different books commence, or which are decorated 
with illuminations. Besides the New Testament, the Eusebian Ca- 
nons are introduced, together with the lessons for particular festivals, 
and a menologium used in the Greek church, &c. The book is 
bound in massy silver covers, in the centre of which the Redeemer of 
the World is represented sitting on a throne, and in the act of pro- 
nouncing a blessing. Above his head is the following inscription, in 
square letters, exhibiting the style in which the capitals are written : 
— A sntQTot evKoyr^ov tov cv ctov sXsc^kttov icpow^ov IouAisA/aov xai 

ryv maiuv ctvTov. “ Lord, bless the least of thy servants, Hieronymus 
Gulielmus, and his family.” Of the style of writing adopted in the 
body of the manuscript, the annexed engraving will afford a correct 

1 Michaelis, vol. ii. part.i. pp. 355— 357. part ii. pp. 749, 750. Bp. Marsh adds, « This 
copy of Mill's Greek Testament, with Jackson’s marginal readings, is a treasure of sacred 

criticism, which deserves to be communicated to the public. It contains the result of all 
his labours in that branch of literature ; it supplies many of the defects of Mill, and cor- 
rects many of his errors: and, besides quotations from manuscripts and antient versions, it 

contains a copious collection of readings from many of the fathers, which have hitherto been 
very imperfectly collated, or wholly neglected.” Ibid. p. 750. 

4 Midiaelis, vol. ii. part ii. p. 870. 

Plate VIII. 

°p° v° c "v 'tb'zJ ’ ° ^ v op 

3HpP^^|-^CU. 0 0- »V o f-Syf, O 0 lloer. H^r 6-p OL£J~y^ -jr^joc- 
— To jj 0 | J % -DaTXjTTcu cTlWTo (7 0" 'I/ 67 J %o 6^>^3 pic 
cLuToy^ <£/^p ffoou £\e eii » p r* trap ey » (yp clut 

(jVOH H/J |<ai. JJ ^CDH Hp_, <5<q£)CCic top <x p W|jr> 

pK <5 <f> coc tb trU_o"n«- <f>cu/j 4 • k<uh oHUx> 

iL Ti'ou cluto xAjuutiJ^GJ B AjJ up cC/6^jj Gpo Vpoc 
/fll _ /° ^ * > ' - _ * 

j(][ nxre cp o ; -m^j oc «Txrti-pcL © (3 * op o stcu cunrco / ai 
nor 16 OuToch >s.0€fJ€*CXUXpT«Upl O-JJ , \\m 

-Aj«a-pTu p H^CTM t “csr-€ L ©u Hrt>u cf^aoToc y * ipr cL7ra-fJ 

TTSr a *tm cp£-/rco 01 cfj A c£u ~n> u HE « k£th ou— 

^ O <p Cl 3 C » ^sXJp'Oj JX^JFupKOTl TT^p Cjf>® 

To' W V" 5 4 >qqc 3 of if eijjojj , q cf>coT/3 4 

'Taro^Ta alpo'jj J ^c cSp *jj 

qI1> |<o o-pu3D HJJ , l^cu o U-o'opP J| omTou 0 
1^71 £p> , LcjclL o Lo / crp^> cr au -rap 

Facsimile of the Codex Ebnerianus, a Manuscript executed a.d. 1391 . 


Sect. III. § 4-.] Containing the New Testament . 

idea, and at the same time exemplify the abbreviations frequent in 
Greek manuscripts of the 12th and 13th centuries. Our specimen 
comprises the ten first verses of the first chapter of Saint John’s 
Gospel ; the abbreviations, though very numerous, being uniformly 
the same, do not interpose any material difficulty to the easy perusal 
of the manuscript. Wetstein, though he has admitted it into his 
catalogue, has made use of it only in the eighteenth chapter of Saint 
John’s Gospel; Michaelis has classed it among the uncollated ma- 
nuscripts of the New Testament. 1 It is to be hoped that some learned 
member of the University of Oxford will publish a collation of all the 
various readings which may be found in this manuscript. 

10. The Codex Ottobonianus 298. is one of the manuscripts 
preserved in the Vatican Library, and was written in the fifteenth 
century. It contains the Acts and Apostolic Epistles, and was col- 
lated by Dr. Scholz for his intended critical edition of the New Tes- 
tament. It is here noticed on account of its containing the disputed 
clause in 1 John v. 7 ? 8., in- the following manner: of (juotprvpovvTsg 
utto too oupavo Trarrip Xoyog xcu nvsVfjLa ayiov ? tea ol rpsig etg to h sun 
xcli rpsig sktiv ol paprupouvreg oltto ty\$ yvjj, to Trvcuyu, &c. &c. This 
manuscript has been altered in many places, in order to make it har- 
monise with the Latin Vulgate 2 ; on this account, as well as its late 
date, it can be of little value in sacred criticism, except where it 
corroborates the readings of MSS. of better authority and of earlier 
date. Its principal readings are given by M.Dermout in his Collec- 
tanea Critica in Novum Testament urn. 

XXI. The limits assigned to this work forbid any further detail 
respecting the other manuscripts of the New Testament. Referring 
the reader, therefore, to the elaborate volumes of Michaelis, who has 
given a catalogue raisonne of two hundred and ninety-two manuscripts, 
to which his annotator Bishop Marsh has added one hundred and 
seventy- seven 3 , we proceed briefly to notice two collations of manu- 
scripts, which in the seventeenth century produced a warm contest be- 
tween biblical critics of different denominations. 

1. In 1673, Pierre Poussines (Petrus Possinus), a learned Jesuit, 

1 See Wetstein’s N. T. Proleg. p. 58. Bp. Marsh’s Michaelis, vpl. ii. parti, p.258. 
De Murr's Memorabilia Bibliothecae Norimb. part ii. pp. 100 — 131. where the Code* 
Ebnerianus is minutely described and illustrated with thirteen plates of illuminations, 
■which arc very curious in an antiquarian point of view. Our engraving is copied from one 
of De Murr’s fac-similes. 

9 Scholz, Biblischc Critische Rcisc, p. 105. 

3 Michaelis, vol. ii. parti, pp. 185 — 361. partii. pp. 649 — 83 5. Professor Beck, in 
his Monogrammata Hermeneutiees Librorum Novi Foederis, (parti, pp. 42 — IQO.) has; 
given a catalogue of all the manuscripts (394 in number} which are certainly known to 
have been collated, exclusive of Lectionaria, Etichologia, or prayer books of the Greek 
church, and Menologia or Martyrologies. In pp. 91 — 93. he has specified, by numbers 
referring to his own catalogue, what manuscripts are written in uncial letters ; what con- 
tain the entire New Testament, and how many contain the greater part, or particular books 
of the New Testament, It seems to be precisely that sort of catalogue which Michaelis 
recommends biblical students to make, in order that they may be enabled (when consulting 
Mill or Wetstein) to judge of the proportion of manuscripts which are in favour of a 
reading to those which decide against it. The total number of manuscripts collated by 
Grie,sbaeh for his edition of the New Testament, was three hundred and fifty -Jive. He has 
given a list of them in his Prolegomena, tom. i. pp. ci.— cxxvi. and also critical accounts 
of the most important manuscripts in the two volumes of his Symbol© Critics. 


Principal Manuscripts of the Neis) Testament . [Part I. Ch. 

published Extracts from twenty-two manuscripts, which, he said, were 
in the library of Cardinal Barberini at Borne, and had been collated 
by order of Pope Urban VIII., by John Matthaeus Caryophilus. 
Dr. Mill inserted these extracts among his various readings ; but as 
it was not known for a long time what had become of the Barberini 
manuscripts, and as the readings of the Barberini collation are for the 
most part in favour of the Latin Vulgate version, Wetstein, Sender, 
and other Protestant divines, accused Poussines of a literary fraud. 
Of this, however, he was acquitted by Isaac Vossius, who found the 
manuscript of Caryophilus in the Barberini Library ; and the imput- 
ation against the veracity of that eminent Greek scholar has been com- 
pletely destroyed by M. Birch, a learned Danish divine, who recognised 
in the Vatican Library six of the manuscripts from which Caryophilus 
had made extracts. 1 2 

2. Another Jesuit, John Louis De la Cerda, inserted in his 
Advei'saria Sacra , which appeared at Lyons in 1 696, a collation of 
sixteen manuscripts (eight of which were borrowed from the library 
of the king of Spain) which had been made by Pedro Faxardo, 
Marquis of Velez. From these manuscripts, the marquis inserted 
various readings in his copy of the Greek Testament, but without 
specifying what manuscripts in particular, or even how many in 
general, were in favour of each quoted reading. The ‘remarkable 
agreement between the Velesian readings and those of the Vulgate 
excited the suspicions of Mariana (who communicated them toDela 
Cerda) that Velez had made use only of interpolated manuscripts, 
that had been corrected agreeably to the Latin Vulgate, subsequently 
to the council of Florence. However this may be, the collation of 
Velez will never be of any utility in the criticism of the New Testament, 
unless the identical manuscripts, which he made use of, should here- 
after be discovered in any Spanish library. But such a discovery 
must be considered as hopeless after the laborious and careful re- 
searches made by Bishop Marsh, relative to this collation of Velez, who 
(he has proved to demonstration) did not collate one single Greek or 
Latin manuscript,but took his various lections from Robert Stephens's 
edition of the Latin Vulgate, published at Paris in 1540; that the 
object which the marquis had in view, in framing this collection of 
readings, was to support, not the Vulgate in general, but the text of 
this edition in particular, wherever it varied from the text of Stephens's 
Greek Testament printed in 1550; and that with this view he tran- 
slated into Greek the readings of the former, which varied from the 
latter, except Tvhere Stephens's Greek margin supplied him with 
the readings which he wanted, where he had only to transcribe, and 
not to translate. 3 

1 At the end of his Catena Patrum Graecorum in Marcum. Poussines prefixed to 
these extracts the title of Collationes Greed Contextus omnium Librorum Nod Testamenti 
junta editionem Antverjmxsem regiam, cum xxii Antiquis Codicibus Manuscriptis. Ex 
Bibliotheca Barberinu 

* JMIchaelis, vol. ii. part i. pp. 212— 21 6. partli. pp.66G, 667. Birch, Quatuor Evan- 
gelic, Prolegom. p. 36. Ejusdwn, Varies Lectiones ad Text. iv. Evangel. Proles, p.xlii. 
Hafnia?, 1801, 8vo. ' 

3 Michaelis, vol.ii. parti, pp. 351-354. partii. pp. 824, 825. Mr. (now Bishop) 

IV. Sect. I.] Divisions occurring in the Old Testament . 







I. Different Appellations given to the Scriptures . — II. General Divisions 
of the Canonical Boohs . — III. Particularly off the Old Testament . — 

I. The Lav j. — 2. The Prophets . — 3. The Cetubim or Hagiographa. 
— IV. Account off the Masora. — V. Modern Divisio?is off the Books cff 
the Old Testament . — Chapters and Verses . 

i. The collection of writings, which is regarded by Christians as 
the sole standard of their faith and practice, has been distinguished, 
at various periods, by different appellations. Thus, it is frequently 
termed the Scriptures, the Sacred or Holy Scriptures, and some- 
times the Canonical Scriptures. This collection is called The 
Scriptures , as being the most important of all Writings ; — the Holy 
or Sacred Scriptures , because they were composed by persons di- 
vinely inspired ; and the Canonical Scriptures , either because they 
are a rule of faith and practice to those who receive them; or 
because, when the number and authenticity of these books were 
ascertained, lists of them were inserted in the ecclesiastical canons 
or catalogues, in order to distinguish them from such hooks as were 
apocnjphal or of uncertain authority, and unquestionably not of di- 
vine origin. But the most usual appellation is that of the Bible — 
a word which in its primary import simply denotes a book, but which 
is given to the writings of the prophets and apostles, by way of emi- 
nence, as being the Book of Books, infinitely superior in excellence 
to every unassisted production of the human mind. 1 

II. The most common and general division of the canonical books 

is that of the Old and New Testament ; the former containing those 
revelations of the divine will which were communicated to the He- 
brews, Israelites, or Jews, before the birth of Christ, and the latter 
comprising the inspired writings of the evangelists and apostles. The 
appellation of Testament is derived from 2 Cor. iii. 6. 14-.; in which 
place the words vj ? xolKoliu and rj xouvy diaSyxYj are by the old 

Latin translators rendered antiquum test amentum and novum testamen- 
tum , old and new testament, instead of antiquum ffeedus and novum 
ffbedus , the old and ?iew covenant ; for although the Greek word 

signifies both testament and covenant, yet it uniformly cor- 
responds with the Hebrew word Berith , which constantly signifies a 
covenant. 2 The term fic old covenant,” used by Saint Paul in 

Marsh’s Letters to Archdeacon Travis, p.67., and the Appendix to that work, (pp.253 — 
344.) in which a minute detail of the Velesiau readings is given, as also in Christian 
Benedict Michaelis’s Traetatio Critica dc Variis Lectionibus Novi Testamenti, §§ 87 — 
89. (pp. 96— 101.) 4to. Halae Magdeburgic®, 1749. 

J Lardner’s Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 1 — 8. 4to. vol. iii. pp. 137 — 140. Jahn, In- 
trod. ad Vet. Foed. p. 7. 

2 Jerome, Comment, in Malachi, cap. ii. op, tom. iii. p, 1816. 


Divisions and Maries of Distinction [Parti. Ch. 

2 Cor. iii. 1 4*.. does not denote the entire collection of writings which we 
term the Bible, but those antient institutions, promises, threatenings, 
and, in short, the whole of the Mosaic dispensation, related in the Pen- 
tateuch, and in the writings of the prophets ; and which in process 
of time were, by a metonymy, transferred to the books themselves. 
Thus we find mention made of the book of the covenant in Exodus 
(xxiv. 7.), and in the apocryphal book of Maccabees (Macc. i. 57.): 
and after the example of the apostle, the same mode of designating 
the sacred writings obtained among the first Christians, from whom 
it lias been transmitted to modern times. 1 

III. The arrangement of the books comprising the Old Testa- 
ment, which is adopted in our Bibles, is not always regulated by the 
exact time when the books were respectively written ; although the 
book of Genesis is universally allowed to be the first, and the pro- 
phecy of Malachi to be the latest of the inspired writings. Previously 
to the building of Solomon’s temple, the Pentateuch was deposited 
in the side of the ark of the covenant (Deut. xxxi. 24 — 26.), to be 
consulted by the Israelites; and after the erection of that sacred 
edifice, it was deposited in the treasury, together with all the suc- 
ceeding productions of the inspired writers. On the subsequent de- 
struction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, the autographs of the 
sacred books are supposed to have perished : although some learned 
men have conjectured that they were preserved, because it does not 
appear that Nebuchadnezzar evinced any particular enmity against 
the Jewish religion; and in the account of the sacred things carried 
to Babylon (2 Kings xxv. 2 Clmon. xxxvi. Jer. Iii.), no mention is 
made of the sacred books. However this may be, it is a fact, that 
copies of these autographs w T ere carried to Babylon : for we find the 
prophet Daniel quoting the law (Dan. ix. 11. 13.), and also expressly 
mentioning the prophecies of Jeremiah (ix. 2.), which he could not 
have done, if he had never seen them. We are further informed 
that on the rebuilding, or rather on the finishing, of the temple in 
the sixth year of Darius, the Jewish worship was fully re-established 
according as it is mitten in the book of Moses (Ezra vi. 18.) : w T hich 
would have been impracticable, if the Jews had not had copies of the 
law then among them. But what still more clearly proves that they 
must have had transcripts of their sacred writings during, as w r ell as 
subsequent to, the Babylonish captivity, is the fact, that when the 
people requested Ezra to produce the law of Moses (Nehem. viii. 1.), 
they did not entreat him to get it dictated anew to them ; but that 
he would bring forth the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord 
had commanded to Israel L 

About fifty years after the rebuilding of the temple, and the con- 
sequent re-establishment of the Jewish religion, it is generally admit- 
ted that the canon of the Old Testament was settled"; but by whom 
this great work w r as accomplished, is a question on which there is con- 
siderable difference of opinion. On the one hand it is contended, that 
it could not have been done by Ezra himself; because, though he has 

1 Dr. Lardner has collected several passages from early Christians writers, who thus 
metonymicaliy use the word Testament. Works, Svo. vol. vi. p. 9. 4to. vol. iii. p. HO. 


IV. Sect. I.] Occurring in the Old Testament. 

related his zealous efforts in restoring the law and worship of Jehovah, 
yet concerning the settlement of the canon he is totally silent ; and the 
silence of Nehemiah, who has recorded the pious labours of Ezra* as 
well as the silence of Josephus, who is diffuse in his encomiums on 
him, has further been urged as a presumptive argument why he could 
not have collected the Jewish writings. But to these hypothetical 
reasonings we may oppose the constant tradition of the Jewish church, 
uncontradicted both by their enemies and by Christians, that Ezra, 
wdth the assistance of the members of the great synagogue (among 
whom were the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi), did col- 
lect as many copies of the sacred writings as lie could, and from them 
set forth a correct edition of the canon of the Old Testament, with 
the exception of his own writings, the book of Nehemiah, and the 
prophecy of Malachi ; which were subsequently annexed to the canon 
by Simon the Just, who is said to havsa been the last of the great 
synagogue. In this Esdrine text, the errors of the former copyists 
were corrected : and Ezra (being himself an inspired writer) added 
in several places, throughout the books of this edition, what appeared 
necessary to illustrate, connect, or complete them . 1 Whether Ezra’s 
own copy of the Jewish Scriptures perished in the pillage of the temple 
by Antiochus Epiphanes, is a question that cannot now by ascertained : 
nor is it material, since we know that Judas Maccabaeus repaired the 
temple, and replaced every thing requisite for the performance of 
divine worship (1 Macc. iv. 36 — 59 .), which included a correct, if not 
Ezra’s own, copy of the Scriptures . 2 It is not improbable, that in this 
latter temple an ark was constructed, in which the sacred books of the 
Jews were preserved until the destruction of Jerusalem and the sub- 
version of the Jewish polity by the Romans under Titus, before whom 
the volume of the law was carried in triumph, among the other spoils 
which had been taken at Jerusalem . 3 Since that time, although there 
has been no certain standard edition of the Old Testament, yet, since 
both Jews and Christians have constantly had the same Hebrew 
Scriptures to which they have always appealed, we have every possi- 
ble evidence to prove that the Old Testament has been transmitted 
to us entire, and free from any material or designed corruption. 

The various books contained in the Old Testament, were 
divided by the Jews into three parts or classes — the Law — the 
Prophets — and the Cetiibim> or Hagiographa , that is, the Holy- 
Writings: which division obtained in the time of our Saviour 4 , 

1 Prideaux’s Connection, parti, bookv. sub anno 44 (?- vol. i. pp. 329 — 344. and the’ 
authorities there cited. Carpzov. Introd. ad Libros Biblicos Yet. Test* pp. 24. 808, SQ9. 

2 Bishop Tomline’s Elements of Christian Theology, vol. i. p. 1 1. 

3 Josephus dc Bell. Jud. lib. vii. c. 5. § 5. 

4 These are the wards which I spake unto you 3 while X was yet with you , that all things 
might be fulfilled which are written in the Law, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, 
concerning me . (Lukexxiv. 44.) In which passage by the Psalms is intended the 
Hagiographa; which division beginning with the Psalms, the whole of it (agreeably to 
the Jewish manner of quoting) is there called by the name of the book with which it 
commences. Saint Peter also, when appealing to prophecies in proof of the Gospel, says — 
(e All the prophets from Samuel, and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have 
likewise foretold of these days,” (Aetsiii. 24.) In which passaget he apostle plainly in- 
cludes the books of Samuel in the class of prophets, 

VOL. IT. ' M 

IQ2 Divisions and Marks of Distinction [Part I. Ch. 

and is noticed by Josephus 1 , though he does not enumerate the 
several books. 

1. The Law (so called, because it contains precepts for the regula- 
tion of life and manners) comprised the Pentateuch, or five books of 
Moses, which were originally written in one volume, as all the manu- 
scripts are to this day, which are read in the synagogues. It is not known 
when the writings of the Jewish legislator were divided into fve books : 
but, as the titles of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuter- 
onomy, are evidently of Greek origin, (for the tradition related by Philo, 
and adopted by some writers of the Romish church, that they were given 
by Moses himself, is too idle to deserve refutation,) it is not improbable 
that these titles were prefixed to the several books by the authors of the 
Alexandrian or Septuagint Greek version. 

2. The Prophets, which were thus designated, because these books 
were written by inspired prophetical men, were divided into the former 
and latter 2 , with regard to the time when they respectively flourished : the 
former prophets contained the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 
and I and 2 Kings, the two last being each considered as one book ; the 
latter prophets comprised the writings of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and 
of the twelve minor prophets, whose books were reckoned as one. The 
reason why Moses is not included among the prophets, is, because he 
so far surpassed all those who came after him, in eminence and dignity, 
that they were not accounted worthy to be placed on a level with him : 
and the books of Joshua and Judges are reckoned among the propheti- 
cal books, because they are generally supposed to have been written by 

" the prophet Samuel. 

3. The Cetubim or Hagiographa, that is, the Holy Writings, com- 
prehended the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lament- 
ations of Jeremiah, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah 
(reckoned as one), and the two books of Chronicles, also reckoned as one 
book. 3 This third class or division of the Sacred Books has received its 
appellation of Cetubim or Holy Writings , because they were not orally 
delivered, as the law of Moses was ; but the Jews affirm that they were 
composed by men divinely inspired, who, however, had no public mission 
as prophets : and the Jews conceive that they were dictated not by 
dreams, visions, or voice, or in other ways, as the oracles of the pro- 
phets were, but that they were more immediately revealed to the minds 
of their authors. It is remarkable that Daniel is excluded from the num- 
ber of prophets, and that his writings, with the rest of the Hagiographa, 
were not publicly read in the synagogues as theLawand the Prophets were: 
this is ascribed to the singular rainutenesss with which he foretold the com- 
ing of the Messiah before the destruction of the city and sanctuary (Dan. 
ix.) and the apprehension of the Jews, lest the public reading of his pre- 
dictions should lead any to embrace the doctrines of Jesus Christ. 4 

The Pentateuch is divided into fifty or fifty-four Paraschioth , or 

1 Contr. Apion. lib. i. § S. 

2 This distinction, Carpzov thinks, was borrowed from Zech, i. 4 .— 1 te Be ye not as 
your fathers, unto whom the former prophets have cried.” — Xntrod. ad Lib. Bibl. Vet. 
Test. p. 1 46. 

3 Hie Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, are, in the 
modern copies of the Jewish Scriptures, placed immediately after the Pentateuch j. under 
the name of the five MegiUotli or volumes. The Book of Ruth holds sometimes the first 
or second, and sometimes the fifth place. 

4 Hottinger’s Thesaurus, p.510. Leusden’s Philologus Hebrscus, Diss. ii. pp.lS — 22. 
Bishop’s Cosin’s Scholastical Hist, of the Canon, c. ii. pp. 10. et seq. 


IV. Sect. I-] Occurring in the Old Testament . 

larger sections, according as the Jewish lunar year is simple or in- 
tercalary ; one of which sections was read in the synagogue every 
Sabbath-day : this division many of the Jews suppose to have been 
appointed by Moses, but it is by others attributed, and with greater 
probability, to Ezra. These paraschioth were further subdivided 
into smaller sections termed Siderim , or orders. Until the persecu- 
tion of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Jews read only the law; but the 
reading of it being then prohibited, they substituted for it fifty-four 
Haphtorothf or sections from the prophets. Subsequently, however, 
when the reading of the law was restored by the Maccabees, the 
section which had. been read from the Law was used for the first, 
and that from the Prophets, for the second lesson . 1 These sections 
were also divided into Pesukim , or verses, which have likewise been 
ascribed to Ezra ; but if not contrived by him, it appears that this 
subdivision was introduced shortly after his death : it was probably 
intended for the use of the Targumists or Chaldee interpreters. 
After the return of the Jews from the Babylonish captivity, when 
the Hebrew language had ceased to be spoken, and the Chaldee 
became the vernacular tongue, it was (as we have already remarked 2 ) 
usual to read the law, first in the original Hebrew, and afterwards 
to interpret it to the people in the Chaldee dialect. For the purpose 
of exposition, therefore, these shorter periods were very convenient . 3 

IV. Originally, the text of the Sacred Books was written without 
any breaks or divisions into chapters or verses, or even into words $ 
so that a whole book,- as written in the antient manner, was, in fact, 
but one continued word. Many antient Greek and Latin manu- 
scripts thus written are still extant. The sacred writings having 
undergone an infinite number of alterations by successive transcrip- 
tions, during the lapse of ages, whence various readings had arisen, 
the Jews had recourse to a canon, which they judged to be infallible, 
in order to fix and ascertain the reading of the Hebrew text, and this 
rule they called Masora or tradition, as if this critique were nothing 
but a tradition which they had received from their ancestors. Ac- 
cordingly, they pretend, that, when God gave the law to Moses on 
Mount Sinai, he taught him, first, its true readings and, secondly, 
its true interpretation ; and that both these were handed down by 
oral tradition, from generation to generation, until at length they 
were committed to writing. The former of these, viz. the true read- 
ing, is the subject of the Masora ; the latter or true interpretation 

1 Of these divisions we have evident traces in the New Testament ; thus, the section 
(vepioxn) of the prophet Isaiah, which the Ethiopian eunuch was reading, was, in all pro- 
bability, that which related to the sufferings of the Messiah. (Acts viii. 32.) When Saiiit 
Paul entered into the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia, he stood up to preach after the 
reading of the Law and the Prophets (Acts xiii. 15.); that is, after reading the first lesson 
out of the Law, and the second lesson out of the Prophets, And in the very discourse 
which he then delivered, he tells the Jews that the Prophets were read at Jerusalem on 
every Sabbath-day , that is, in those lessons which were taken out of the Prophets. 
(Acts xiii. 27.) 

2 See pp. 5, 6.* supra, of this volume. 

3 In Vol. III. Part , Chap. I II. Sect. IV. we have given a table of the Paraschioth or 
Sections of the Law, together with the ffajjhtoroth or Sections of the Prophets as they are 
read in the different Jewish synagogues for every sabbath of the year, and also showing 
the portions corresponding with our modern divisions of chapters and verses. 

M 2 


Divisions and Maries of Distinction [Part I. Ch. 

is that of the Mishna and Gemara , of which an account is given in 
a subsequent chapter of the present volume. 

The Masoretic notes and criticisms relate to the books, verses, 
words, letters, vowel points, and accents. The Masorites or Masso- 
rets, as the inventors of this system were called, were the first who 
distinguished the books and sections of books into verses. They 
marked the number of all the verses of each book and section, and 
placed the amount at the end of each in numeral letters, or in some 
symbolical word formed out of them ; and they also marked the 
middle verse of each book. Further, they noted the verses where 
something was supposed to be forgetten ; the words which they be- 
lieved to be changed ; the letters which they deemed to be super- 
fluous ; the repetitions of the same verses ; the different reading of the 
words which are redundant or defective ; the number of times that 
the same word is found at the beginning, middle, or end of a verse ; 
the different significations of the same word ; the agreement or con- 
junction of one word with another; what letters are pronounced, 
and what are inverted, together with such as hang perpendicularly, 
and they took the number of each, for the Jews cherish the sacred 
books with such reverence, that they make*a scruple of changing 
the situation of a letter which is evidently misplaced ; supposing 
that some mystery has occasioned the alteration. They have like- 
wise reckoned which is the middle letter of the, Pentateuch, which 
is the middle clause of each book, and how many times each letter 
of the alphabet occurs in all the Hebrew Scriptures. The following 
table from Bishop Walton will give an idea of their laborious mi- 

nuteness in these researches. 


Aleph occurs in the 42377 


occurs in the 



3 Beth 

Hebrew Bible 


23 Mem 

Hebrew Bible 


y Gimel 



J Nun 



“f Daleth 



D Samech 



n He 



y Ain 



1 Vau 



£3 P e 



} Zain 






n Cheth 



p Koph 



J3 Teth 



1 Resh 



9 Yod 



yy Shin 



3 Caph 



n Tau 



* Bishop Walton’s Prolegom. c. viii. § 8. p. 275, edit. Dathii. In the last century, 
an anonymous writer published the following calculation (copied from the Encyclopedia 
Perthensis) similar to that of the Masorites, for the English Version of the Bible, under 
the title of the Old and New Testament j Dissected, It is said to have occupied three years 
of the compiler’s life, and is a singular instance of the trifling employments to which 
superstition has led mankind. 


Books in the Old - 39 In the New - 27 

Chapters - - 929 - - 260 

Verses - 23,214 - - 7,959 

Words - 592,439 - 181,253 

Betters . 2,728,800 - 838,380 

Total - 66 

- 1,189 

- 773,692 

- 3,567,180 


IV. Sect. L] Occurring in the Old Testament . 

Such is the celebrated Masora of the Jews. At first, it did not 
accompany the .text ; afterwards the greatest part of it was written 
in the margin. In order to bring it within the margin, it became 
necessary to abridge the work itself. This abridgment was called 
the little Masora, Masora parva ; but, being found too short, a more 
copious abridgment was inserted, which was distinguished by the 
appellation of the great Masora, Masora magna . The omitted parts 
were added at the end of the text, and called the final Masora, 
Masora finalist 

Lastly, in Jewish manuscripts and printed editions of the Old 
Testament, a word is often found with a small circle annexed to it, or 
with an asterisk over it, and a word written in the margin of the same 
line. The former is called the Ketib^ that is, ^written, and the latter, 
Keri , that is, read or reading, as if to intimate, write in this manner, 
but read in that manner. For instance, when they meet with certain 
words, they substitute others : thus, instead of the sacred name Je- 
hovah, they substitute Adonai or Elohim ; and in lieu of terms not 
strictly consistent with decency, they pronounce others less indelicate 
or more agreeable to our ideas of propriety , 2 ^ The invention of 
these marginal corrections has been ascribed to the Masorites. 

The age when the Masorites lived has been much controverted. 
Some ascribe the Masoretic notes to Moses ; others attribute them 
to Ezra and the members of the great synagogue, and their suc- 
cessors after the restoration of the temple-worship, on the death of 
Antiochus Epiphanes. Archbishop Usher places the Masorites 
before the time of Jerome ; Cappel, at the end of the fifth century; 


Chapters - - 183 

Verses - - 6,081 

Words - - 252,185 

The middle chapter, and the least in the Bible, is Psalm. 117. 

The middle verse is the eighth of the 118th Psalm. 

The middle line 2d of Chronicles, 4th chapter, 16th verse. 

The word and occurs in the Old Testament, 35,543 times. 

The same word occurs in the New Testament, 10,684 times. 

The word Jehovah occurs 6855 time. 

Old Testament. 

The middle book is Proverbs. 

The middle chapter is Job 29th. 

The middle verse is 2d Chronicles, 20th chapter, between the 17th and 
18th verses. 

The least verse is 1st Chronicles, 1st chapter and 25th verse. 

New Testament. 

The middle book is Thessalonians 2d.; 

The middle chapter is between the 13th arid 14th Romans. 

The middle verse is chapter 17th of Acts, 17th verse. 

The least verse is 1 1 th Chapter of John, verse 35. 

The 2 1st verse of the 7th chapter of Ezra has all the Letters in the Alphabet except j. 

The 19th chapter of the 2d of Kings and the 37th of Isaiah are alike. 

1 Butler’s Horae Biblicse, vol. i. p, 61. 

2 The reader will find a learned and elaborate elucidation of the Keri in the Rev. John 
Whittaker’s Historical and Critical Inquiry into the Interpretation of the Hebrew Scrip- 
tures, pp, 114—178. 

jvx 3 


Divisions and Marks of Distinction [Part I, Ch. 

Bishop Marsh is of opinion, that they cannot be dated higher than 
the fourth or fifth century ; Bishop Walton, Basnage, Jahn, and 
others, refer them to the rabbins of Tiberias in the sixth century, 
and suppose that they commenced the Masora, which was augmented 
and continued at different times by various authors ; so that it was 
not the work of one man, or of one age. In proof of this opinion, 
which we think the most probable, we may remark, that the notes 
which relate to the variations in the pointing of particular words, 
must have been made after the introduction of the points, and con- 
sequently after the Talmud ; other notes must have been made before 
the Talmud was finished, because it is from these notes that it speaks 
of the points over the letters, and of the variations in their size and 
position. Hence it is evident, that the whole was not the work of 
the Masorites of Tiberias ; further, no good reason can be assigned 
to prove the Masora the work of Ezra, or his contemporaries ; much 
appears to show it was not : for, in the first place, most of the notes 
relate to the vowel points, which, we have seen 1 , were not intro- 
duced until upwards of fifteen hundred years after his time, and the 
remarks made about the shape and position of the letters are un- 
worthy of an inspired writer, being more adapted to the superstition 
of the rabbins, than to the gravity of a divine teacher. Secondly , 
No one can suppose that the prophets collected various readings of 
their own prophecies, though we find this has been done, and makes 
part of what is called the Masora. Thirdly , The rabbins have 
never scrupled to abridge, alter, or reject any part of these notes, 
and to intermix their own observations, or those of others, which is 
a proof that they did not believe them to be the work of the prophets; 
for in that case they would possess equal authority with the text, 
and should be treated with the same regard. Lastly , Since all that 
is useful in the Masora appears to have been written since Ezra’s 
time, it is impossible to ascribe to him what is useless and trifling ; 
and from these different reasons it may be concluded that no part 
of the Masora was written by Ezra. And even though we were to 
admit that be began it, that would not lead us to receive the present 
system in the manner the Jews do, because, since we cannot now 
distinguish what he wrote, and since we find many things in it plainly 
unworthy of an inspired writer, we may justly refuse it the credit 
due to inspiration, unless his part were actually separated from what 
is the work of others. . On the whole, then, it appears, that what is 
called the Masora is intitled to no greater ^reverence or attention 
than may be claimed by any other human compilation . 12 

Concerning the value of the Masoretic system of notation, the 
learned are greatly divided in opinion. Some have highly com- 
mended the undertaking, and have considered the work of the 
Masorites as a monument ot stupendous labour and unwearied assi- 
duity, and as an admirable invention for delivering the sacred text 
from a multitude of equivocations and perplexities to which it was 
liable, and for putting a stop to the unbounded licentiousness and 

1 See pp. 8—12. of the present volume, 

3 Waehner’s Antiquitatcs Hebraeorum, vol. i. pp, 93—137, 

IV. Sect. I.] 


Occurring in the Old Testament . 

rashness of transcribers and critics, who often made alterations in 
the text on their own private authority. Others, however, have 
altogether censured the design, suspecting that the Masorites cor- 
rupted the purity of the text by substituting, for the antient and true 
reading of their forefathers, another reading more favourable to their 
prejudices, and more opposite to Christianity, whose testimonies and 
proofs they were desirous of weakening as much as possible. 

Without adopting either of these extremes, Bishop Marsh ob- 
serves, that sc the text itself, as regulated by the learned Jews of 
Tiberias, was probably the result of a collation of manuscripts. But 
as those Hebrew critics were cautious of introducing too many cor- 
rections into the text, they noted in the margins of their manuscripts, 
or in their critical collections, such various readings derived from 
other manuscripts, either by themselves or by their predecessors, as 
appeared to be worthy of attention. This is the real origin of those 
marginal or Masoretic readings which we find in many editions of 
the Hebrew Bible. But the propensity of the later Jews to seek 
mystical meanings in the plainest facts gradually induced the belief 
that both textual and marginal readings proceeded from the sacred 
writers themselves ; and that the latter w r ere transmitted to posterity 
by oral tradition, as conveying some mysterious application of the 
written words. They were regarded, therefore, as materials, not of 
criticism , but of interpretation .’ ?1 The same eminent critic else- 
where remarks, that notwithstanding all the care of the Masorites 
to preserve the sacred text without variations, “ if their success has 
not been complete, either in establishing or preserving the Hebrew 
text, they have been guilty of the only fault which is common to 
every human effort.” 2 

V. The divisions of the Old Testament, which now generally ob- 
tain, are four in number : namely, 1 . The Pentateuch , or five books 
of Moses ; — 2. The Historical Books , comprising Joshua to Esther 
inclusive; — 3. The Doctrinal or Poetical Books of Job, Psalms, 
the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon; — and, 4. 
The Prophetical Books of Isaiah, Jeremiah with his Lamentations, 
Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets. These are seve- 
rally divided into chapters and verses, to facilitate reference, and 
not primarily with a view to any natural division of the multifarious 
subjects which they embrace: but by whom these divisions were 
originally made is a question, concerning which there exists a con- 
siderable difference of opinion. 

That it is comparatively a modern invention is evident from its 
being utterly unknown to the antient Christians, whose Greek Bibles, 
indeed, had then T*tAoi and Ke<p ctKoua ( Titles and Pleads) ; but the 
intent of these was, rather to point out the sum or contents of the 
text, than to divide the various books. They also differed greatly 
from the present chapters, many of them containing only a few 
verses, and some of them not more than one. The invention of chap- 
ters has by some been ascribed to Lanfranc, who was archbishop of 

1 Lectures on Divinity, part ii. p. 84. 

M 4 

® Ibid. p. 98i 


Divisions and Marks of Distinction [Part I. Ch. 

Canterbury in the reigns of William the Conqueror and William II. ; 
while others attribute it to Stephen Langton, who was archbishop 
of the same see in the reigns of John and Henry III, But the 
real author of this very useful division was cardinal .Hugo de 
Sancto Caro, who flourished about the middle of the 13th century, 
and wrote a celebrated commentary on the Scriptures. Having 
projected a concordance to the Latin Vulgate version, by which any 
passage might be found, he divided both the Old and New Testa- 
ments into chapters, which are the same we now have : these chap- 
ters he subdivided into smaller portions, which he distinguished by 
the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, which are placed in the mar- 
gin at equal distances from each other, according to the length of 
the chapters. 1 The facility of reference thus afforded by Hugo’s 
divisions, having become known to Rabbi Mordecai Nathan, (or 
Isaac Nathan, as he is sometimes called,) a celebrated Jewish teacher 
in the fifteenth century, he undertook a similar concordance for the 
Hebrew Scriptures ; but instead of adopting the marginal letters of 
Hugo, he marked every fifth verse with a Hebrew numeral, thus, 
1 . p| 5 , &c., retaining, however, the cardinal’s divisions into chap- 
ters. This concordance of Rabbi Nathan was commenced a.d. 1438, 
and finished in 1445. The introduction of verses into the Hebrew 
Bible was made by Athias, a Jew of Amsterdam, in his celebrated 
edition of the Hebrew Bible, printed in 1661, and reprinted in 
1667. He marked every verse with the figures in common use, 
except those which had been previously marked by Nathan with 
Hebrew letters, in the manner in which they at present appear in 
Hebrew Bibles. By rejecting these Hebrew numerals, and sub- 
stituting for them the corresponding figures, all the copies of the 
Bible in other languages have since been marked. 2 As, however, 
the modern divisions and sub-divisions are not always made with 
the strictest regard to the connexion of parts, it is greatly to be 
wished that all future editions of the Scriptures might be printed 
after the judicious manner adopted by Mr. Reeves in his equally 
beautiful and correct editions of the entire Bible ; in which the num- 
bers of the verses and chapters are thrown into the margin, and the 
metrical parts of Scripture are distinguished from the rest by being 
printed in verses in the usual manner. 

1 These divisions of cardinal Hugo may be seen in any of the older editions of the 
Vulgate, and in the earlier English translations of the Bible? which were made from that 
version, particularly in that usually called Taverner* s Bible, folio, London, 1539. The 
precise year, in which Hugo divided the text of the Latin Vulgate into its present chap- 
ters, is not known. But as it appears from tjie preface to the Cologne edition of his 
works, that he composed his Concordance about the year 1 248, and as his division of the 
Vulgate into its present chapters was connected with that Concordance, it could not have 
been done many years before the middle of the thirteenth century. Bp. Marsh’s Lectures, 
part v. p. 2 5. note 15. 

2 Buxtorf, Praef. ad Concordant. Bibliorum Hebrseorum. Prideaux’s Connexion, 
vol. i. pp. 332 — 342. Carpzov. Introd. ad Libros Biblicos Vet. Test. pp. 27, 28. Leus- 
den, Philol. Hebr. Hiss. iii. pp, 23—31, Ackermann, Introd. in Libros Saeros Vet, 
Peed. pp. 100—104. 

IV. Sect. II.] Occurring in the New Testament . 




I. Antient Divisions ofTir'koi and Kepa,\cua. — Ammonian , Eusehian , and 
Euthalian Sections. — , Modern Division of Chapters. — II. Account of 
the Antient and Modern Punctuation of the Neva Testament. — Antient 
2 ti%oi and Modern Verses. — III. Of the Titles to each Book . — IV. Sub- 
scriptions to the different Books. 

It is evident on inspecting the most antient manuscripts of the 
New Testament, that the several books were originally written in 
one continued series without any blank spaces between the words 1 2 ; 
but in progress of time, when Christianity was established, and fre- 
quent appeals were made to the sacred winters, in consequence of 
the heresies that disturbed the peace of the church, it became ne- 
cessary to contrive some mode by which to facilitate references to 
their productions. 

I. The Jews, we have already seen 12 , divided their law into pa- 
raschioth and siderim, or larger and smaller sections, and the pro- 
phets into haphtoroth or sections ; and this division most probably 
suggested to the early Christians the idea of dividing the Books of 
the New Testament into similar sections. The early Christian 
teachers gave the name of Pericopte to the sections read as lessons 
by the Jews 3 : and Clement of Alexandria applies the same appel- 
lation to larger sections of the Gospels and St. PauTs Epistles. 
These pericopae then w'ere Avayvcoo-jxara, church lessons or sections 
of the New Testament, which were read in the assemblies for di- 
vine worship after Moses and the Prophets. 

Subsequently the antients divided the New Testament into two 
kinds of chapters, some longer and others shorter ; the former were 
called in Greek titAoj, and in Latin breves ; and the table of con- 
tents of each brevis, which was prefixed to the copies of the New 
Testament, was called hr evi avium. The shorter chapters were called 
xscpaXcacc, capitula , and the list of them, capitulatio. 

This method of dividing is of very great antiquity, certainly prior 
to the fourth century : for Jerome, who flourished towards the close 
of that century, expunged a passage from Saint Matthew's Gospel 

1 This is manifest from the strange manner 'in which the early fathers of the Christian 
church have sometimes separated and united words in the passages which they have quoted- 
Thus instead of 5o^o(rare 877 &pa re rov Qeov, therefore glorify God (1 Cor. vi. 2Q.), Chry- 
sostom read Sogacrare 5tj Hi pare rov Qeov, glorify and carry God / and in this erroneous 
reading he has been followed by the Latin translator, who has glorificate et portate Deum. 
In like manner, in Phil. ii. 4. , instead of emuroi ffKOTrovvres, looking every m an, the Codex 
Boernerianus reads ircacrrois Koirovvres, toiling for every one. Cell^rier, Essai d’une In- 
troduction Critique au Nouveau Testament, p. 112 . Geneve, 1823. 8 vo. Hug’s Intro- 
duction, vol. i. p. 235. 

2 See p. 163. supra . 

3 Justin. Dialog, cum Tryphone, cc.65,6. 72. cited in Hug’s Introd. vol i. p. 253. 
Some vestiges of the same mode of division occur in Tertullian, ad ux. lib.ii. c. 2 , p.187. 
D. De PudicitiA, c. 16. suh f mem, De Monogam. c. XI. p. 683. The passages are 
given at length by Dr. Lardner, Works, 8 vo, vol. ii. p. 283. ; 4to. vol. i. p» 433. 


Divisions and Maries of Distinction [Part I. Ch. 

■which forms an entire chapter, as being an interpolation. 1 These 
divisions were formerly very numerous ; but, not being established 
by any ecclesiastical authority, none of them were ever received by 
the whole church. Saint Matthew’s Gospel, for instance, according 
to the old breviaria, contained twenty-eight breves ; but, according 
to Jerome, sixty-eight. The same author divides his Gospel into 
355 capitula ; others, into 74; others, into 88; others, into 117: 
the Syriac version, into 76 ; and Erpenius’s edition of the Arabic, 
into 101. The most antient, and it appears the most approved of 
these divisions, was that of Tatian (a.d. 172), in his Harmony of the 
four Gospels, for th erirhoi or breves : and that of Ammonius, a learned 
Christian of Alexandria in the third century, in his Harmony of the 
Gospels, for the xs qaXoua. or capitula. From him they were termed 
the Ammonian Sections. As these divisions were subsequently 
adopted, and the use of them was recommended, by Eusebius the 
celebrated ecclesiastical historian, they are frequently called by his 
name. According to this division. Saint Matthew contains 68 
breves, and 355 capitula; Saint Mark, 48 breves, and 234 capitula; 
Saint Luke, 83 breves, and 342 capitula; and St. John, 18 breves, 
and 231 capitula. All the evangelists together form 216 breves and 
1126 capitula. In antient Greek manuscripts the tjtAo* or larger 
portions are written on the upper or lower margin, and the xe<p uXoua 
or smaller portions are numbered on the side of the margin. They 
are clearly represented in Erasmus’s editions of the Greek Testa- 
ment, and in Robert Stephens’s edition of 1550. 

The division of the Acts of the Apostles, and of the Catholic 
Epistles, into chapters, was made by Euthalius bishop of Sulca in 
Egypt, in the fifth century ; who published an edition of St. Paul’s 
Epistles, that had been divided into chapters, in one continued series, 
by some unknown person in the fourth century, who had considered 
them as one book. This arrangement of the Pauline Epistles is to 
be found in the Vatican manuscript, and in some others ; but it by 
no means prevails uniformly, for there are many manuscripts extant, 
in which afresh enumeration commences with each epistle. 2 

Besides the divisions into chapters and sections above mentioned, 
the Codex Bezae and other manuscripts were further divided into 
lessons, called AvxyvoxrpoLToi or Avayvwreig. Euthalius is said to 
have divided Saint Paul’s Epistles in this manner, as Andrew Bishop 
of Caesarea in Cappadocia divided the Apocalypse, at the beginning 
of the sixth century, into twenty-four lessons, which he termed Aoyai 
(according to the number of elders before the throne of God, 
Rev. iv. 4.), and seventy-two titles, according to the number of parts, 
viz. body, soul, and spirit, of which the elders were composed ! 

The division of tjt-Aoj and xs$a\aict continued to be general both 
in the eastern and western churches, until cardinal Hugo de Sancto 
Caro in the thirteenth century introduced the chapters now in use, 

1 The paragraph in question is to be found in the Codex Bezse, immediately after the 
twenty-eighth verse of the twenty-eighth chapter of St. Matthew’s Gospel. Michaelis has 
printed it, together with two Latin translations of it, in his Introduction to the New Test, 
vol. i. pp, 293 — 295. 

2 Millii Prolegomena, §§354 — 360, 662 — 664. 739. et seq. 


IV. Sect II.] Occurring in the New Testament . 

throughout the western church, for the New Testament as well as 
the Old : of which an account has already been given . 1 The Greek 
or eastern church, however, continued to follow the antient divisions; 
nor are any Greek manuscripts known to be extant, in which chap- 
ters are found, prior to the fifteenth century, when the Greek fugi- 
tives, after the taking of Constantinople, fled into the West of 
Europe, became transcribers for members of the Latin church, and 
of course adopted the Latin divisions. 

II. Whether any points for marking the sense were used by the 
apostles, is a question that has been greatly agitated ; Pritius, Pfaff, 
Leusden, and many other eminent critics, maintaining that they were 
in use before the time of the apostles, while Dr. Grabe, Fabricius, 
Montfaucon, Hoffman, John Henry Michaelis, Rogall, John David 
Michaelis, Moldenhawer, Ernesti, and a host of other critics, main- 
tain that the use of points is 'posterior to the time of apostles . 2 The 
numerous mistakes of the fathers 3 , or their uncertainty how parti- 
cular passages were to be read and understood, clearly prove that 
there was no regular or accustomed system of punctuation in use, in 
the fourth century. The majority of the points or stops now in use 
are unquestionably of modern date : for although some full points 
are to be found in the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Vaticanus, 
and the Codex Bezae (as they also are in inscriptions four hundred 
years before the Christian sera), yet it cannot be shown that our pre- 
sent system of punctuation was generally adopted earlier than the 
ninth century. In fact, it seems to have been a gradual improve- 
ment, commenced by Jerome, and continued by succeeding biblical 
critics. The punctuation of the manuscripts of the Septuagint, Er- 
nesti observes from Cyril of Jerusalem 4 , was unknown in the early 
part of the fourth century, and consequently (he infers) the punctu- 
ation of the New Testament was also unknown. About fifty years 
afterwards, Jerome began to add the comma and colon ; and they 
were then inserted in many more antient manuscripts. About the 
middle of the fifth century, Euthalius (then a deacon of the church 
at Alexandria) published an edition of the four Gospels, and after* 
wards (when he was bishop of Sulca in Egypt) an edition of the 
Acts of the Apostles and of all the Apostolical Epistles, in which he 
divided the New Testament into (rri^ot (stichoi) 9 or lines regulated 

1 See p. 168- supra, of this volume. 

2 Rumpteus has given twelve closely printed quarto pages to the enumeration of thestf 
opinions. Com. Crit. in Nov. Test. pp. 165 — 176. 

3 Some of these mistakes and uncertainties of -interpretation are sufficiently curious. 
Thus Jerome on Eph. i. 5. says : “ Dupliciter legendutn, ut caritas vel cum superioribu® 
vel inferioribiis copuletur. ,a And on Philemon 4, 5. he sayss AmbiguS verd diefsrimy 
utrum grates agat Deo suo semper, an memoriam ejus faciat in orationibus suis 

Et utrumque intelligi potest.” (Jerome, Homil.IV. in Job. pp.42, 43. edit. Francofurti.) 
Epiphanius mentions a mark of punctuation Used in the Old Testament, vtfiich he calls 
viroSiaffroKfi j but he takes notice of nothing of the kind in the New Testament, though 
he was warmly discussing the manner in which the sense ought to he divided in John i. 3. 
The disputes which arose concerning this passage, prove to demonstration that there was 
no fixed punctuation at the period referred to. Chrysostom, for instance, branded as 
heretics those who placed a pause after the words ou£e kv and before yeyovev, yet this 
mode of pointing was adopted by Irena?us, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and even by 
Athanasius. Coll6rier, Introduction, p. 1 14. tfhere other additional examples are given. 

4 Cyrilli Catechesis xiii. p. 301. Ernesti, Inst. Interp. Nov. Test. p. 159. 


Divisions and Marks of Distinction [ Part I. Ch. 

by the sense, so that each terminated ■where some pause was to be 
made in reading. Of this method of division (which Euthalius de- 
vised in order to assist the clergy when reading the Word in public 
worship, and obviate the inconveniences and mistakes just noticed) 
the following extract from Tit. ii. 2, 3., according to the Codex H. 
Coislinianus 202., will give an idea to the reader : — 





In English, thus : 



This mode of dividing the sacred text was called and this 

method ot writing - employ yp^ca. At the end of each manuscript it 
was usual to specify the number of stichoi which it contained. When 
a copyist was disposed to contract his space, and therefore crowded 
tire lines into each other, he placed a point where Euthalius had ter- 
minated the line. In the eighth century the stroke which we call a 
comma was invented. In the Latin manuscripts, Jerome’s points were 
introduced by Paul Warnefnd, and Alcuin, at the command of the 
emperor Charlemagne ,• and in the ninth century the Greek note of 
interrogation (;) was. first used. At the invention of printing, the 
editors placed the points arbitrarily, probably (Michaelis thinks) with- 
out bestowing the necessary attention ; and Stephens in particular, 
it is well known, varied his points m every edition. The fac-similes 
given m the third chapter of this volume will give the reader an idea 
of Ae marks of distinction found in the more antient manuscripts. 

however, not only assisted the public reader of the 
N ew Testament to determine its sense; they also served to measure 

1 Hug’s Introduction, vol, i, p, " 


IV. Sect. II.] Occurring in the New Testament . 

the size of books ; thus, Josephus’s twenty books of Jewish Antiquities 
contained 60,000 stichoi, though in Ittigius’s edition there are only 
40,000 broken lines. And, according to an antient written list pre- 
served by Simon, and transcribed by Michaelis, the New Testament 
contained 18,612 stichoi . 1 * 

The verses into which the New Testameitt is now divided, are 
much more modem, and are an imitation of those invented for the 
Old Testament by Rabbi Nathan in the fifteenth century. 3 4 Robert 
Stephens was their first inventor 3 , and introduced them in his edi- 
tion of the New Testament, published in the year 1551. This in- 
vention of the learned printer was soon introduced into all the 
editions of the New Testament ; and the very great advantage it 
affords, for facilitating references to particular passages, has caused 
it to be retained in the majority of editions and versions of the New 
Testament, though much to the injury of its interpretation, as many 
passages are now severed that ought to be united, and vice versa.* 
From this arrangement, however, Wetstein, Rengel, Bowyer, Gries- 
bach, and other editors of the Greek Testament, have wisely de- 
parted, and have printed the text in continued paragraphs, throwing 
the numbers of Stephen’s verses into the margin. Mr. Reeves also 
has pursued the same method in his beautiful and correct editions 
of the authorised English version, and of the Greek Testament in 
12mo., 1803. 

Besides the text in the different books of the New Testament, we 
meet with titles or inscriptions to each of them, and also with sub- 
scriptions at the end, specifying the writer of each boolc , the time and 
place, when and where it was written, and the person to whom it 
was written. 

III. It is not known by whom the Inscriptions or titles of the 
various books of the New Testament were prefixed. Inconsequence 
of the very great diversity of titles occurring in manuscripts it is 
generally admitted that they were not originally written by the 
Apostles, but were subsequently added, in order to distinguish one 
book from another, when the canon of the New Testament was 
formed. It is however certain, that these titles are of very great an- 
tiquity ; for we find them mentioned by Tertullian in the latter part 
of the second century 5 , and Justin Martyr, in the early part of the 
same century, expressly states, that the writings of the four evange- 
lists were in his day termed Gospels . 6 

i Introd. to the New Test. vol. ii. pp. 526, 52 7. Michaelis, after Simon, uses the 
word remain ; but this is evidently a mistake. On the subjects discussed in this section 
Pritius’s Introductio in Nov. Test. pp. 333— 346. 362— .375. may be consulted. 

a See p. 168. supra, of this volume. 

3 He made this division when on a journey from Lyons to Paris, and, as his son 
Henry tells us, (in his preface to the Concordance of the New Testament) he made it 
inter equita ndum, literally, while riding on horseback ; but Michaelis rather thinks that the 
phrase means only, that when he was weary of riding, he amused himself with this work 
at his inn. Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 527. 

4 Thus Col. iv. l. ought to have been united to the third chapter. 

5 Adversus Marcionem, lib. iv. c. 2. e 

6 Apol. i. p. 98. Lardner’s Works, 8vo, vol. ii. p. 121. j 4to. vol, i. p. 344. Pritii 
Introd. in Nov. Test. pp. 331—333. 

1 74? On the Various Readings [Part I. 

IV. But the Subscriptions annexed to the Epistles are manifestly 
spurious : for, in the first place, some of them are, beyond all doubt, 
false, as those of the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, which pur- 
port to be written at Athens, whereas they were written from 
Corinth. In like manner, the subscription to the first epistle to the 
Corinthians states, that it was written from Philippi, notwithstanding 
St. Paul informs them (xvi. 8.) that he will tarry at Ephesus until 
Pentecost; and notwithstanding he begins his salutations in that 
Epistle, by telling the Corinthian Christians (xyi. 19.) the Churches 
of Asia salute you; a pretty evident indication that he himself was in 
Asia at that very time. Again, according to the subscription, the 
Epistle to the Galatians was written from Rome ; yet, in the Epistle 
itself, the Apostle expresses his surprise (i. 6.) that they were so 
soon removed from him that called them ; whereas his journey to 
Rome was ten years posterior to the conversion of the Galatians. 
And what still more conclusively proves the falsehood of this sub- 
scription is, the total absence in this epistle of all allusions to his 
bonds or to his being a prisoner ; which Saint Paul has not failed to 
notice i ft every one of the four epistles, written from that city and 
during his imprisonment. 1 Secondly , The subscriptions are alto- 
gether wanting in some antient manuscripts of the best note, w r hile 
in others they are greatly varied. And, thirdly , The subscription an- 
nexed to the first Epistle to Timothy is evidently the production of 
a writer of the age of Constantine the Great, and could not have 
been written by the Apostle Paul : for it states that epistle to have 
been w r ritten to Timothy from Laodicea, the chief city of Phrygia 
Pacatiana ; whereas the country of Phrygia was not divided into the 
two provinces of Phrygia Prim a, or Pacatiana , and Phrygia Secunda , 
until the fourth century. According to Dr. Mill, the subscriptions 
were added by Euthalius bishop of Sulca in Egypt, about the 
middle of the fifth century. But, whoever was the author of the 
subscriptions, it is evident that he was either grossly ignorant, or 
grossly inattentive. 

. The various subscriptions and titles to the different books are ex- 
hibited in Griesbach’s Critical Edition of the New Testament. 




I. The Christian Faith not affected by Various Readings . — II. Nature of 
V (trious Readings . — Difference between them and mere errata . — III. 
Causes xff various Readings ; — 1. The negligence or mistakes of tran- 
scribers ; — 2. Errors or imperfections in the manuscript copied; — 

1 Paley’s Hone Paulinse, pp, 378, 379. 

Ch. V.] I n the Old and New Testaments . 175 

3. Critical Conjecture; — 4. Wilful Corruptions of a manuscript from party 
motives . — IV. Sources whence a true reading is to he determined; — 

1. Manuscripts ; — 2. Antient Editions; — 3. Antient Versions ; — 4. 
Parallel Passages ; — 5. Quotations in the Writings of the Fathers ; — 
6. Critical Conjecture; — V. General Rules for judging of Various 
Readings . 

i. The Old and New Testaments, in common with all other 
antient writings, being preserved and diffused by transcription* the 
admission of mistakes was unavoidable : which increasing with the 
multitude of copies* necessarily produced a great variety of different 
readings. Hence the labours of learned men have been directed 
to the collation of manuscripts, with a view to ascertain the genuine 
reading; and the result of their researches has shown* that these 
variations are not such as to affect our faith or practice in any thing 
material : they are mostly of a minute, and sometimes of a trifling 
nature. 66 The real text of the sacred writers does not now (since 
the originals have been so long lost) lie in any single manuscript or 
edition, but is dispersed in them all. It is competently exact indeed, 
even in the worst manuscript now extant ; nor is one article of faith 
or moral precept either perverted or lost in them.” 1 It is therefore 
a very ungrounded fear that the number of various readings, parti- 
cularly in the New Testament, may diminish the certainty of the 
Christian religion. The probability, Michaelis remarks, of restoring 
the genuine text of any author* increases with the increase of the 
copies ; and the most inaccurate and mutilated editions of antient 
writers are precisely those of whose works the fewest manuscripts 
remain. 2 Above all, in the New Testament, the various readings 
show that there could have been no collusion ; but that the manu- 
scripts were written independently of each other, by persons separated 
by distance of time, remoteness of place, and diversity of opinions. 
This extensive independency of manuscripts on each other, is the 
effectual check of wilful alteration ; which must have ever been im- 
mediately corrected by the agreement of copies from various and 
distant regions out of the reach of the interpolator. By far the 
greatest number of various readings relate to trifles, and make no 
alteration whatever in the sense , such as for Aavti; SoAc/xwvra 

for SoAo/xcom; kou for Ss ; xayco for xui eyc/J for and I); s Xarrwv for 

1 Dr. Bentley's remarks on Free-thinking, rem. xxxii, (Bp. Randolph’s Enchiridion 
Theologicum, vol. v. p. 163.) The various readings that affect doctrines, and require 
caution, are extremely few, and easily distinguished by critical rules ; and where they do- 
affect a doctrine, other passages confirm and establish it. See examples of this observ- 
ation in Michaelis, voki. p.2G6 , and Dr. Nares’s Strictures on the Unitarian Version of 
the New Testament, pp. 219 — 221. 

Q Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. pp, 263 — 268. ef In profane 
authors,” says Dr. Bentley, <! (as they are called) whereof one manuscript only had the 
luck to bo preserved, — as Velleius Paterculus among the Latins, and Hesyehius among 

the Greeks the faults of the scribes are found so numerous, and the defects so beyond all 

redress, that notwithstanding the pains of the learnedest and acutest critics for two whole 
centuries, those books still are, and are likely to continue, a mere heap of errors. On the 
contrary, where the copies of any author are numerous, though the various readings always 
increase in proportion, there the text, by an accurate collation of them made bv skilful and 
judicious hands, is ever the more correct, and comes nearer to the true words of the 
author.” Remarks on Free-thinking, in Enchirid. Theol. vol. v. p. 158. 


[Part I. 

On the Various Readings 

sAacrcrctfv; Kvpioshv Qsos;kaXco(nv for Mcoo^ for Mceytrus; and 

ym <r£co for ymr&a ; all which in most cases may be used indifferently. 

In order to illustrate the preceding remarks, and to convey an idea 
of their full force to the reader, the various readings of the first ten 
verses of Saint John’s Gospel are annexed in Greek and English ; — 
and they are particularly chosen because they contain one of the most 
decisive proofs of the divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 

Common Reading . 

Ver. 1. *0 \oyos % v 

nP05 toj' Qeov. 

The Word was with 

Various Reading . 

Authorities . 

EN Tw ©ew — in God. 

Clemens Alexandrinus, 

2. Ouros i\v tv apxn 
irpos rov ®soy. 

The same was in the 
beginning with God. 

\ omitted. 

r The MSS. 47 and 64 of 
1 Griesbach’s notation; Mat- 
( thcei’s 19. 

4. Ev avrco foij HN, 
In him was life. 


ESTIN — IS life. 

r The Codex Bezoe, Origen, 
J Augustine, Hilary, and other 
[ Fathers. 

4. Kac i] foil $v to <pus 
tcov av&pcai rav* 

And the life was the 
light of men. 

— the light of men. 

omitted . 

The light was the life. 

{ The fragment of St. John’s 
Gospel, edited by Aldus, 
Clemens Alexandrinus, and 

B- The Codex Vaticanus. 

5. 'H (TKona. ATTO ou 


The darkness compre- 
hended it not. 

7. I va iravrts ms-tvtraxn 
Bi avrov. 

Tliat all men might be- 
lieve through him. 

^AuroN — HIM not. 
| omitted. 

C B. The Codex Vaticanus, 
j the MSS. 13 and 114# of 
y Griesbach, three other MSS. 
C of less note, and Theodotus. 

f The MS. 235 of Gries- 
j bach, the Aldine Fragment of 
1 St. John’s Gospel, Irenajus, 
(. and Hilary. 

9. Epxoftevov st$ TON 


That cometh into the 

In hunc mundum — 
into this world. 


The Vulgate and Italic (or 
old Ante-Hieronymian) Ver- 
sions, Tertullian, Cyprian, 
Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, 
and other fathers. 

30. JLv TX1 Kotrpa nv. 
He was in the world. 

} hoc mundo — in this 

The MSS. of the old Latin 
Versions, denominated the 
Codices Veronensis, Vercel- 
lensis, Brixiensis, and Cor- 
beiensis, edited by Blanchini 
and Sabatier; Irenaeus, Cy- 
prian, Ambrose, once , Au- 
gustine repeatedly. 

On the whole, these various readings — though nbfc selected from 
any single manuscript, but from all that have been collated, together 
with the antient versions and the quotations from the fathers, — no 
where contradict the sense of the evangelist ; nor do they produce 
any material alteration in the text . 1 

i Christian Observer for 1807, vol. vi. p. 221. 

Ch. V.] 

In the Old and New Testaments. 


The principal collators and collectors of various readings for the 
Old Testament, are Dr. Kennicott and M- De Pi-ossi, of whose labours 
an account is given in the Appendix, pp.7, 8. 150. As the price of 
their publications necessarily places them out of the reach of very 
many biblical students, the reader, who is desirous of availing himself 
of the results of their laborious and learned researches, will find a 
compendious abstract of them in Mv. Hamilton’s Codex Crzticus 
(London, 1821, 8vo.). For the New Testament, the principal col- 
lations are those of Erasmus, the editors of the Complutensian and 
London Polyglotts, Bishop Fell, Dr. Mill, Kuster, Bengel, Wetstein, 
Dr. Griesbach, and Matthaei, whose editions are also described in 
the Appendix to this volume 1 ; and for the Septuagint, the col- 
lations of the late Rev. Dr. Holmes, and his continuator, the Rev. 

J. Parsons. 2 

II. However plain the meaning of the term ce Various Reading ” 
may be, considerable difference has existed among learned men con- 
cerning its nature. Some have allowed the name only to such readings 
as may possibly have proceeded from the author; but this restriction 
is improper. Michaelis’s distinction beLween mere errata and various 
readings appears to be the true one. 68 Among two or more different 
readings, one only can be the true reading; and the rest must be 
either wilful corruptions or mistakes of the copyist.” It is often dif- 
ficult to distinguish the genuine from the spurious; and whenever the 
smallest doubt can be entertained, they all receive the name of va- 
rious readings; but in cases where the transcriber has evidently 
written falsely, they receive the name of errata . 

III. As all manuscripts were either dictated to copyists or tran- 
scribed by them, and as these persons were not supernaturally guarded 
against the possibility of error, different readings would naturally be 
produced : — 1 . By the negligence or mistakes of the transcribers ; to * 
which we may add, 2. The existence of errors or imperfections in the 
manuscripts copied; 3. Critical emendations of the text; and 4. Wil- 
ful corruptions made to serve the purposes of a party. Mistakes thus 
produced in one copy would of course be propagated through all suc- 
ceeding copies made from it, each of which might likkewise have 
peculiar faults of its own ; so that various readings would thus be 
increased, in proportion to the number of transcripts that were made. 

L Various readings have been occasioned by the Negligence on 
Mistakes oe the Transcribers. 

(1.) When a manuscript is dictated , whether to one or to several copyists r 
the parly dictating might not speak with sufficient clearness ; he might read 
carelessly , and even utter words that were not in his manuscript ; he might 
pronounce different words in the same manner . I he copyist , therefore, who 
should follow such dictation , would necessarily produce different readings , 
One or two examples will' illustrate this remark. 

In Eph.iv. 19., Saint Paul, speaking of the Gentiles, while without the Gospel, says, 
that being past feeling, they gave themselves over to lasciviousness. I 1 or air^XynKores past 

l Michaelis has given a list of authors who have collected various readings, with the re- 
marks on their labours. Introd. vol. ii. parti, pp. 419 — 429. See also Ptail s Dissei*. 
tatio de Genuinis Novi Testamenti Lectionibus, pp. 101—122, 

s See an account of their edition of the Septuagint, in the Appendix, pp. 37, 38. 

VOL. II, # N 


[[Part I. 

On the Various Readings 

feelina (which the context shows to be the genuine reading), several manuscripts, versions, 
and fathers read avyXviKores, being without hope. Dr* Mill is of opinion, that this lection 
proceeded from some ignorant copyist who had in his mind Saint Paul’s account of the 
Gentiles in Eph. ii. 12. where he said that they had no hope, eAwlSa /uy exovres. But for 
this opinion there is no foundation whatever, The antient copyists were not in general 
men of such subtile genius. It is therefore most probable that the word airyATriKores crept 
in from a mis-pronunciation on the part of the persons dictating. The same remark will 
account for the reading of vyvtoi, young children , instead of yirioi r gentle, in 1 Thess. ii. 7., 
which occurs in many manuscripts, and also in several versions and fathers. But the scope 
and context of this passage prove that vyrnot cannot be the original reading. It is the 
Thessatonians, whom the apostle considers as young children , and himself and fellow- 
labourers as the nurse* He could not therefore with any propriety say that he was among 
them as a little child , while he himself professed to be their nurse . 

(2.) Further , as many Hebrew and Greek letters are similar both in sound 
and in form, a negligent or illiterate copyist might , and the collation of ma- 
nuscripts has shewn that such transcribers did> occasion •various readings by 
substituting one word or letter for another . 

The permutation, or interchanging, of vowel points, letters* and even entire words, 
which are to be found in Hebrew manuscripts are copiously treated by Muntinghe. 1 
Of the permutations in Greek MSS., the Codex Cottonianus of the book of Genesis 
presents many very striking examples. 

Thus, B and M are interchanged in Gen. xliii, 11. repefjuvSrov is written for rcpeSiv&ov, 
— T and K, as ywyyos for Kwyyos, x. 9. ; and e contra paXeic for paXty, xi, Iff- — V and 
N, as <rvyKOpov<nv for (rvvKopovffiv, xxxiv. SO. — r and X, as bpaxp-ara for bpay[xara t 
xxxvii- ff, — A and A as KeA povaiovs for KjeS/xau/aious, xv. 1 9. ; and e contra AiSoop. for 
AiA«/i, xxxvi. 2. — A and N, as Ne§p«i/ for Ne§/>w§, x. 9. — A and T, as Arar for Ara5, 

x. 10, &c . — Z and 2, as XacaS for Xaga5, xxii. 22. ; and paKapt^ovcriv for paKapurovcnv, 
xxx. IS. — 0 andX, Qx°i a X f° r 0 X°£ a ^> xxvi. 26. — © and T, ottos- papyri for anrorpapyfri, 
xvi. 9. — K and X, as KaAcuc for XaAssx, x. 11.; and ovx for owe, xiii. 9. — n and as 
vpetypTjrcu for wregypyrat, xxxix. 9. Sometimes consonants are added to the end of the 
words apparently for the sake of euphony; as XwSaA for Xoo€a, xiv. 15. — yvvaueav for yvvaiKa, 

xi. 13.— Eiri'Aar for Eufaa, x. 7. — M is generally retained in the different flexions of the verb 
Aaj uGava, in the future XyppoXai, Xyppoyrai, xiv. 23, 24, &c. and in the aorist, Xy/ipdyro, 
xviii. 4. And also in the word avprrapaXy[xpdys, xix. 1 7. This also is common in the 
Code x Vaticanus . Sometimes a double consonant is expressed by a single one, and vice versa : 
for instance, evevyKovra for evvevyKovra, v. 9., and Sewaap for Zevaap, x. 10. ; peAia for 
peAXia, xxiv. 47, &c. 

The Vowels are often interchanged ; for instance, A and E, as refftfepuKOj/ra for 
Te<T<rapaKOVTa, vii. 4., ovary for avery, xxi. 14. — A and K, as ove<v\ev for yvcagw, viii. 
paxMpy for j uax<up a > xxvii. 40. — E and H, as epejua for epyjua, xxv, 29., yvoTmoafry for 
etnnmao-fry, xxviii. 12. — Hand I, as K enoi for Kynot } x. 4., eA uaj for eXiKi, xlix. 11. — 
U and T, as TryxW for^xw, vi. 17. — Veypa for Peu^ua, xxii. 24. — O and T, as XiiupvQa for 
Stopotpo, vi. 17. — O and XI, as PocogoSr for Poco&oft-, x. 11. — The Vowels are often inter- 
changed with the Diphthongs; for instance, AI and E, as cwreAewreoflui for a7reAeu<recr0e, 
xix. 2., a v-eveyKOA. for aveveyK-t, xxii. 2., ttoiSiov for TreSiou, xxxv. 27., Kara^srai for k<x ragere, 
xlii. ,38.-^- El and A, asyyp.#. for yypa } xv. 15. — El and E as eivetczv for eveKev, xviii. 5.,— 
El and H, as ^ifcivand ybeiv, xviii. 19. — El and I, as rrapiryKei for irapsis-yicei, xviii, 8,, 
yvvauua for ywauceia, xviii. 11., ovSis for ouSets, xxxi. 41., tcpeto v for Kpiov, xv. 9, &c. — 
OI and-H, as Aa Sots for XaSy s 3 xxxi. 50. — -OT and H, as tcX ypys for nXypovs, xxvii. 27- ; 
and lastly, OT and XI, as Karapov^ovs for tear ape* pevovs, xii. 13. 2 

The manuscripts of the New Testament abound with similar instances of 

Thus we meet with Apivabap. for ApivaZa^ in Matt. i. 4.; A Keip for in Matt, i, 14.; 

Sict rm pc&yrvj/ for $uo row pc&yrav, in Matt. xi. 2. ; Marfrai/ for M arfrar, in,Luke iii. 24.; 
papav&y for pwpavSy, in Luke xiv. 34. ; roirov for tv-kov, in John xx. 25. ; Kaipa for KvpLco, 
in Rom. xii. 11.; A aviB for AafliS, in Matt. i. 1., and in many other passages. The reader 
will find numerous other examples in the elder Michaelis’s Dissertation on various read- 
ings. 3 Permutations of this kind are very frequent in antient manuscripts, and also in 
inscriptions on coins, medals, stones, pillars, and other monuments of antiquity, , ' 

1 Brevis Expositio Critices Veteris Fcederis, pp. 87 — 108. 

a Dr. Holmes’s Edition of the Septuagint, vol. i. Praef. cap. ii. § I, 

3 D. Christian! Benedicti Michaelis Tractatio Critica de Variis Lectionibus Novi 
Testament^ pp. 8 — 10. Hake Magdeburgicse, 1749, 4to. 

Ch. V J 

In the Old and New Testaments . 


(3.) In like manner the transcribers might have mistaken the line on which 
the copy before them was written , for part of a letter ; or they might have 
mistaken the lower stroke of a letter for the line ; or they might have mistaken 
the true sense of the original , and thus have altered the reading ; at the 
same time they were unwilling to correct such mistakes as they detected , lest 
their pages should appear blotted or defaced , and thus they sacrificed the 
correctness of their copy to the beauty of its appearance. This is particularly 
observable in Hebrew manuscripts . 

(4.) A person having written one or more words from a wrong place, and 
not observing it ; or not choosing to erase it, might return to the right line, 
and thus produce an improper insertion of a word or a clause . 

Of this we have a striking instance in John vii. 26. — Do the rulers know indeed 
( a\ 77 &ws), that this is the very, Christ ( uXrjfrcas & Xpis-os, truly the Christ) ? The second 
a\Y}^us is wanting in the Codices Vaticanus, Cantabrigiensis (or Codex Bezse), Cyprius, 
Stephani tj , or Regius 62, Nanianus, and Ingolstadiensis, in numbers 1 , 13, 28, 40, 63, 
69, 116 , 1 18, and 124, of Griesbach’s notation, and nine other manuscripts of less note, 
which are not specified by him ; it is also wanting in the manuscripts noted by Matthaei 
with the letters a, .1, s, and 10 , in all the editions of the Arabic version, in Wheeloc’s 
edition of the Persian version, in the Coptic, Armenian, Sclavonic, and Vulgate versions; 
and in all the copies of the Old Italic version, except that of Brescia. Origen, Epipha- 
nius, Cyril, Isidore of Pelusium, Chrysostom, and Nonnus, among the antient fathers ; 
and Grotius, Mill, Bengel, Bishop Pearce, and Griesbach, among the modern writers, 
are all unanimous in rejecting the word a\7}fras. The sentence in 1 Cor. x. 28. Tou yap 
K vpiov 17 y t } kou ro 7r\7jpo)fia auT 7 js, The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof, is 
wanting in the Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Cantabrigiensis, Basileensis, Boreeli, 
Harleianus No. 5864, and Seidelii, and in Nos. 10 , 17, 28, 46, 71 *, 73, and 80, of 
Griesbach’s notation : it is also %vanting in the Syriac version, in Erpenius’s edition of the 
Arabic version, in the Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Vulgate, and Old Italic ver- 
sions, and in the quotations of the fathers Johannes Damascenus, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, 
Isidore of Pelusium, and Bede. Griesbach has left it out of the text, as a clause that 
ought most undoubtedly to be erased. There is, in fact, scarcely any authority to sup- 
port it ; and the clause is superfluous ; in all probability it was inserted from the twenty- 
sixth verse, which is word for word the same. 

(5.) When a transcriber had made an omission } and' afterwards observed 
it, he then subjoined what he had omitted , and thus produced a transposition 

Thus, Matt. v. 4. is subjoined to 5. in the Codex Bezse, in the Vulgate version, and in 
the quotation of Jerome. Luke xxiii. 17. is omitted in the Codices Alexandrinus,' Va- 
ticanus, Cyprius, and Stephani in the Coptic and Sahidic versions,, and in- the Codex 
Vercellensis of the Old Italic version : and it is subjoined to the ninteenth verse in the 
Codex Bezae. 

In like manner, Rom, i. 29. is very different in different copies. 

In the Textus Rcceptus or common editions, we read, a$ima, nropveia, novypia, it \ eovcj-ia, 
Kama, unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness , covetousness, maliciousness r 

In the Codex Alexandrinus and Ethiopic version, we read, adi/eia, Tropqpia, Kama, TrXeo- 
vel-ia, — unrighteousness, wickedness, maliciousness , covetousness. 

In the Codex Claromontanus, we read, a5(/aa, Kama, iropveta, 'jrXeove^w, — unrighteous- 
ness, maliciousness, covetousness. 

In the Vulgate version, we read, iniquitate, malitia, fornicatione, avaritia , nequitid , 
whence it is evident that the authors of that translation read, aSz/ao, Trovrjpta, rr opveia, 
TTheovefra, Kama. And 

The order of the words in the Syriac version shows that its author* read, aSima, iropveia, 
Trovrjpia, Kama , irXeov^ia, — unrighteousness, fornication , wickedness r maliciousness , covet- 

(6.) Another cause of various lections in Hebrew manuscripts , rferable 
to this head, is the addition of letters to the last word in the lines in order 
to preserve their symmetry ; and in Greek manuscripts omissions are fre- 
quently occasioned by what is called by.Mrtkivrw (homoeoteleuton), or when 
a word after a short interval occurs a second time in a passage . Here f 
the transcriber having written the word at the beginning of the passage , on 

1 Dr. Gerard’s Institutes of Biblical Criticism, p. 2S8, 

N 2 


[Part I, 

On the Various Rectdhigs 

looking at the hook again from which he copies , his eye catches the same word 
at the end of the passage , and continuing to write what immediately follows, 
he of course omits intermediate words . 

This fact vill account for the omission of the concluding sentence of Matt. v. 19., and 
the whole of verse SO., in the Codex Bezos. Again, in Matt, xxviii. 9. the words 
air aryyeiKat rots fj.a&7]Tais avrov (to teU his disciples ), are omitted from the same cause, in 
the Codices Vaticanus and Bezas, in the MSS. by Griesbach numbered 10, 33, 49, 59, 
60, 69, 1 19, 142#, 225, 227, the Evangelisteria numbeied 1, 13, 15, 17, 32, in the 
second of the Barberini MSS., and in those noted d. and q. by Matthoei; as well as in 
the Syriac, Arabic (as printed in the London Polyglott), Persic, Coptic, Armenian, 
Vulgate Latin, Saxon, and Old Italic Versions (except the manuscript of Brescia), and 
by the fathers Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine. And Mark ix. 26. is omitted 
in the Codices Vaticanus 1209, Stephani jj, Vaticanus 354, and the MSS. by Griesbach 
numbered 2, 27, 63, 64, 121, 157, in MaUhsei’s 17, in the Coptic Version, the Codex 
San-germanensis 2 of the Italic Version, in the printed editions of Aldus and Frobenius, 
and by Theophylact. 

(7.) As all the most antient manuscripts were written in capital letters , and 
without any spaces between words , or even sentences, syllables are frequently 
omitted or repeated . So, careless or ignorant transcribers have very often 
mistaken the notes of abbreviation , which are of frequent occurrence in an - 
iient manuscripts . A few specimens of such abbreviations are given in the 
preceding part of this Volume . 

From this source probably originated the reading, in 1 Pet. ii. 3. of Xpiros (Christ) 
instead ofXjWjvos (gracious) , which occurs in the MSS. by Griesbach numbered 40, 68, 
and others of less note, in Matthari’s g, in some printed editions, and also in the verse as 
cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, Gregory Nazianzen, and Procopius, and by Theophylact 
in his commentary on this text^ The reading in the manuscript whence the transcriber 
made his copy, must have been Xs; which, not being understood by him, he altered into 

(8.) Lastly , the ignorance or negligence of transcribers has been a most 
fruitful source of various readings , by their having mistaken marginal notes 
or scholia for a part of the text. It was not unusual in antient manuscripts 
to write in the margin an explanation of difficult passages, or a word sy- 
nonymous to that in the text, but more usual and more easily understood , or 
with the intent of supplying a seeming deficiency ; any or all of which might , 
in the copies taken from the manuscript in which these notes were written , 
be easily obtruded on the text itself \ 

Thus, to Matt, vi 33. some copies, as well as the fathers Clemens Alexandrintts, Origen* 
and Eusebius, add the following clause, as having been uttered by Jesus Christ At Terre 
xa pisyaXa, fecu ra puptca vpuv TrpoxreStTjtTerat /cat aireire ra eirovpavia kcu ra emyeta irpocr- 
reSnjcrerat v£uv : * — Seek ye great tilings, and little things shall be added unto you ; and seek 
ye heavenly things, and earthly things shall be added unto you . But this addition is ma- 
nifestly a gloss. 

So, in Mark vii. 35., after he sjmke plain , the following sentence is added in MS. 90 of • 
Griesbach s notation : — Keu gAaAgt euA oya>v top ©gov, — and he spoke, praising God . That 
the man did this, we may readily conclude ; but this sentence was not added by the evan- 
gelist. It was evidently a gloss 

Again, in Luke vii. 16., after the sentence God hath visited his people, the words 
aya&ov, for good, are added in the manuscripts by Griesbach noted M. 13, 50, 69, 71, 
106, 114, and eight others, in Matthcei’s x, in the Syriac (as printed in the London Po- 
lyglot!), in the Armf-nian, and in all the Arabic versions, and in the^Codices Veronensis, 

A ercellensis, Corbeiensis, Colbertinus 4051, San-germanensis 1, and Forojuliensis, of the 
Old Italic Version. But it is manifestly a gloss, and is rejected as such by Dr. Mill, 
and Griesbach. 

It is worthy of remark, that the differences caused by these or similar additions do in 
no respect whatever affect any point ot faith or morality. Several eminent critics, .for 
instance, are of opinion that the controverted clause in 1 John v. 7, 8. crept into the text 
in this manner; because it is not found in any antient manuscripts, nor in the writings 
of the fathers who disputed against the Arians. The evidence for the passage in question 
is fully considered in Vob IV. Part II. Chap. IV. Sect V. § VI. But, for the sake of 
argument, let us suppose it to be an omission In the manuscripts where It is wanting, or 
an addition to those where it occurs ; it cannot in any way be prejudicial to the Christian 

Ch. V.] 

In the Old and 'New Testaments . 


faith ; because, Whatever sense we may put upon that passage, the same truth being most 
clearly and indisputably taught in other places of the New Testament, there is no more 
occasion for adding it, than there is inconvenience in omitting it. 

2. Errors or Imperfections in the manuscript^ from 'which a 
transcriber copied, are a further source of various readings . 

Besides the mistakes arising from the strokes of certain letters being 
faded or erased, others of a contrary nature may arise from the transpa- 
rency of the paper or vellum, whence the stroke of a letter on one side 
of the leaf may seem to be a part of the letter on the other side of the 
leaf, and in this manner O may be taken for ®. 

According to Wetstein, this very accident happened to Mill, in examining the cele- 
brated passage (1 Tim.iii. 16.) in the Codex Alexandrinus. Mill had asserted in regard 
to the OC in this manuscript, that some remains of a stroke were still visible in the 
middle of the omicron, and concluded therefore that the word was properly ©C. But 
Wetstein, who examined this manuscript more accurately, could discover no trace of any 
stroke in the omicron, but took notice of a circumstance which he supposes led Mill into 
error. On the other side of the leaf, directly opposite to O, is the letter 6, in the word 
eTCGBGIA, the middle stroke of which is visible ou the former side, and occupies the 
hollow of O. Wetstein having made the discovery, called several persons to witness, 
who confirmed the tiuth of it. But this hypothesis of Wetstein’s has been questioned by 
Dr. Woide and has been most clearly disproved by Dr. Berriman.- In order to dis- 
cover the genuine reading of a manusciipt where the letters are faded, Michaelis recom- 
mends the critic to have recourse to such as are related to it, either in time, place, or 
character, and if possible to those which were immediately copied from it while the letters 
were still legible. Velthusen and Griesbaeh are unanimous ill regard to the propriety of 
this rule, but in their application of it to 1 Tim. iii. 16. they have drawn. directly opposite 
conclusions. Those who endeavour to supply what time has destroyed, and venture to 
write anew the remnant, or seeming remnant, of a faded stroke, are guilty of an act that 
deserves the highest censure : the Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephrem, and Codex Cla- 
romontanus, have all suffered in this manner, but the authors of these amendments have 
deprived their successors of the means of judging for themselves, and have defeated the 
end which they intended to answer. 

Again, the omission of a passage in an aniient manuscript, which the writer added 
afterwards in the margin, might lead a copyist into error, unless it was particularly 
marked m what part of the text the passage ought to be inserted. Many manuscripts are 
still extant, in which omissions are in this manner supplied, especially in those preserved 
at Moscow, which Matthnei has extracted and accurately described in his critical edition of 
the New Testament. 

3. A third source of various readings is Critical Conjecture., 
or an intended improvement of the original text . 

“ In reading the works of an author of known literary reputation 
we ascribe grammatical or orthographical errors, if any are to be found, 
rather to a mistake of the printer than to a want of knowledge in the 
writer. In the same manner the transcriber of a manuscript attributes 
the faults of his original to the error of a former copyist, and alters them, 
as he supposes they were written by the author. But if he carries his 
critical conjectures too far, he falls himself into the error which he in- 
tended to avoid.” This may be done in various ways. 

(1.) Thus the transcriber may take an expression to be faidty which in 
reality is not so ; or he may mistake the sense of the author , and suppose that 
he has discovered a grammatical error , when, in fact , he himself construes 
falsely: — or the grammatical error intended to be corrected actually pro* 
ceedeffrom the author himself 3 

1 Novum Testamentum Graecum, e Codice MS. Alexandrino ; Frasfat. §87. p. xxxi. 

2 Critical Dissertation upon 1 Tim.iii, 16. pp. 1£3 — 160. 

3 With regard to these corrections of grammatical errors, Michaelis has laid down the 
four following rules, viz. 

“I. In those passages where we find only an apparent grammatical error, the seem- 
ingly erroneous reading may be generally considered as the genuine, and the other read* 
ings as corrections, and therefore spurious. 

N 3 

|g2 On the Various Headings [Parti. 

(2,) Further » some critical copyists have not only corrected ungrammati- 
cal or inaccurate expressions, but have even converted inelegant into ele- 
gant phrases : and they have likewise omitted words that appeared to them 
superfluous > or the difference of which they did not understand . 

Thus, in Mark vii. 37. rovs a\a\ovs, the dumb , is omitted as superfluous in Griesbach’s 
>1S. 28- (Colbertinus 4705, or Colbertinus 2. of Dr. Mill’s notation.) So, in Mark x. 
19. Mi? airos^^y, defraud not , is omitted in the Codices Vaticanus and Cyprius, and 
in eighteen other manuscripts, as well as in the Armenian version, and also in Theophylact. 
It seems included in prf do not steal , and does not occur in the other Gospels. 

Once more, Keyomos, saying, (Matt i. 22.) is omitted, because the transcriber deemed it 
an unnecessary addition after the words, that which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet. 

{ 3 .) But of all the sources of various lections which are referable to this 
head , the most ample , according to Michaelis, and the most productive of 
spurious passages in the New Testament, is the practice of altering parallel 
passages so as to render more perfect their , conformity to each other . The 
Gospels in particular have suffered in this way ; and Saint Paul's Epistles 
have very frequently been interpolated, in order to make his quotations from 
the Old Testament harmonise with the Septuagint version , where they dif- 
fered from the exact words of the latter. 

Two or three instances of alterations from parallel passages will confirm this remark. 

Thus, in Matt. xii. 8. For the son of man is lord even of the sabbath-day , koli , even, is 
omitted in eighty-seven manuscripts, and in several printed editions, as well as in the 
Syriac, Arabic, the Persic in Bp. Walton’s Polyglott, the Coptic, Armenian, Sclavonic, 
and Italic versions, and also in the passage as quoted by Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, 
Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylact. It has been added from the parallel passage 
in Mark ii. 28, or in Luke vi. 5, ; and is justly rejected by Griesbach as an interpolation. 
In Matt. xii. 35. fcapbias, of the heart , is wanting in one hundred and seven manu- 

scripts as welLas in several printed editions, and in the Arabic, Persic, Sclavonic, Anglo- 
Saxon, Old Italic, and Vulgate versions 5 it is also wanting in the passage as cited by 
Origen, the author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory 
of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Cyprian, Lucifer, Hilary, and Ambrosiaster. It has 
been inserted from the parallel place in Luke vi. 45. 

The clause in Matt, xxvii. 35. I va TrK7)pw&7} to prjSev (that it might be fulfilled which 
was spoken), &c. to the end of that verse, is omitted in one hundred and sixty-one manu- 
scripts in the Syriac MSS. and also in some Syriac editions, in the Arabic version both 
MSS. and also as printed in Bp. Walton’s Polyglott, in the Persic version of the Poly- 
glott, in all the manuscripts, and in most printed editions of the Coptic, Sahidic, Ethi- 
opia, and Sclavonic versions, in most MSS. and editions of the Vulgate Latin version, 
in several MSS. of the old Italic version ; and likewise in the verse as cited by Chrysos- 
tom, Titus of Bostra, Euthymius, Theophylact, Origen, the old Latin translator of 
Ireuzeus, Augustine, and Juvencus. This clause has been .interpolated from John xix. 
24, Griesbach justly omits it as decidedly spurious. 

Numerous similar interpolations have been made in the Acts of the Apostles, *by these 
supposed amendments ; and where 'the same story is related more than once, transcribers, 
and more frequently translators, have supplied from the one what seemed to be -deficient 
in the other. Not to multiply examples unnecessarily in illustration of this last remark, 
it will be sufficient to compare the narrative of Saint Paul’s conversion, as related by 
Saint Luke (Acts ix.), with the apostle’s own account of it in Acts xxii. and xxvi. ; and 
also the two narratives of the conversion of Cornelius, described in Acts x. and xi. 

( 4 .) Lastly , some critics have altered the text of the New Testament in 

“ Z Real grammatical errors, in the works of a correct and classical writer, are justly 
ascribed to a mistake of the copyist, and the same sentiments may be entertained of an 
author of less eminence, when among several copies one or two only have the false-reading. 

41 3. But when expressions that deviate from the strictness of grammar are found in 
the writings of an .author who had not the advantage of a learned education, and was to- 
tally regardless of the accuracy of his style, not in single but repeated instances, and 
retained in a very great number of manuscripts, they must be attributed, not to the 
transcriber, but the author. 

f 4. When one grammatical error in particular is frequently found in one and the same 
writing, as the improper use of the nominative in the book of Revelation, no doubt can be 
made that it proceeded from the author himself.” — Michaelis, vol, i, p. 305. 

Ch. V,] 

In the Old and New Testaments . 


conformity to the Vulgate version ; but various readings 9 which are evi- 
dently derived from this source , are utterly undeserving of attention, 

4. Wilful Corruptions, in order to serve thepurposes of a party, 
whether orthodox or heterodox, are another source of various readings . 

Among the antient heretics no one has been more severely charged with falsifying the 
sacred text, in order to support his tenets, nor has any one more justly deserved the cen- 
sure, which has been bestowed upon such unwarrantable conduct, than Marcion. Yet 
Michaelis has shown that all his deviations from the text in common use are not wilful 
corruptions, but that many of them are really various readings; and he has exculpated the 
Arians from the same charge. It is, however, well known that Marcion caused the two 
first chapters of Saint Luke’s Gospel to disappear from his copy, as also Luke iv. 37, 
38, 39. In Luke viii. 19. he also expunged the words tj fn\r Tjp tea i ot d8e\<j>(u avrov, his 
mother and brethren . In Mark xv. 28. instead of p.era avofiap eXoytcr&T], he was numbered 
with the transgressors , the Eutychians read veKpcov, dead, in order to support their hypo- 
thesis, that Christs’ s body was an aerial form and not human. 

On the other hand, it is a fact that some corruptions have been de- 
signedly made by those who are termed orthodox, and have subse- 
quently been preferred when so made, in order to favour some received 
opinion, or to preclude an objection against it. As this is a source of 
various readings (we believe) but little known, and less considered, 
we shall adduce two or three examples from PfafTs dissertation on vari- 
ous readings, who has considered the subject at length. 

(I.) Markxni. 32. O vSeovios. These words are omitted in some manuscripts, and 
rejected by some of the fathers, because they thought it favoured the Arians. Ambrose, 
who flourished in the fourth century, states that many manuscripts in his time omitted them. 

(2.) Luke i. 35. After yevvufievov, the words e/c crov have been added in several ma- 
nuscripts in the Syriac, Persic, Arabic, Ethiopic, and other translations, as well as in 
numerous quotations of the fathers, in opposition to the Eutychians, who denied the two 
natures of Jesus Christ. 

(3.) Luke xxii. 43. The whole verse is omitted in the Alexandrian and some other 
manuscripts, because some orthodox Christians imagined that the mention of an angeFs 
strengthening our Saviour during his agony in the garden detracted from his Deity. 

(4.) I Cor. xv. 5. Saint Paul asserts that Christ appeared after his resurrection ta 
the twelve , rots SaSerca, though at that time two of the number were wanting, Thomas 
being absent, and Judas Iscariot being dead. Some manuscripts therefore read epSeica, 
eleven , lest the sacred historian should be charged with falsehood, though every attentive 
reader of the New Testament knows that the Apostle, in writing this, used the figure 
called synecdoche , in which a part is put for the whole. 

(5. ) Matt. i. 1 8. n piv 7 ] cvveXfrtip avrovs ( before they came together ), and 25. ccvrrjs rov 
TrpoToroicop {her first bom), are in some copies designedly omitted, lest any should doubt 
the perpetual virginity of Mary the mother of Christ. 

IV. The causes of various readings being thus ascertained, the 
next step is to consider the sources whence the true reading is to be 
determined. The legitimate sources of emendation, are 1. Manu- 
scripts; 2. The most antient and best Editions; 3. Antient Ver- 
sions, (and, for the Old Testament in particular, the Samaritan text 
of the Pentateuch, together with the Masora, and the Talmud) ; 
4. Parallel Passages ; 5. Quotations from the Old and New Testa- 
ment in the works of the Fathers ; and 6. Critical Conjecture. But 
these various sources are all to be used with great judgment and 
caution, as being fallible criteria ; nor is the common reading ever 
to be rejected but upon the most rational grounds. 

1. Manuscripts. — Having already given some observations on 
the age of the manuscripts, together with an account of some of the 
most antient 1 , it w ill only be necessary that we should in this place 

' See an acsount of the principal Hebrew and Greek MSS. in pp. 87 — 93, 94, 95. 1 15 
— 157. of the present volume. 

N 4 

!g4? On the Various Readings [Part I. 

offer a few hints concerning their relative value, and the application 
of them to the determination of various readings. 

(1.) In genera^ then, we may affirm that the present copies of the Scrip- 
tures of the Old and New Testament, under ike guardianship of the Jewish, 
Samaritan, and Christian churches, agreeing in even/ iking essential, are 
of the same authenticity and authority with Ike original autographs ; not- 
withstanding the errors that have crept into them, from whatever cause . 

(2.) The number of manuscripts, however . is not so much to be considered , 
as their quality , antiquity, and agreement with the most antient interpreters ; 
for the true reading may be preserved in a single manuscript. 

(3.) Those manuscripts are to be accounted the best, which are most con- 
sonant with those used bij the antient interpreters ; and , with regard* to the 
Old Testament, in particular , M. de Rossi slates, that those manuscripts are 
in every case preferable which have not been tampered with by the Maso - 
retes, and which have the Chaldee paraphrase interjected, in alternate verses . 

(4.) Although , other things being equal, the more antiently and accurately 
written manuscripts are to be preferred , yet a recent and incorrect copy 
'may often have the better reading , because it may have been transcribed 
from an excellent and antient copy. 

(5.) An accurate manuscript is preferable to one that is negligently 

Various readings, therefore, particularly in the Hebrew Scriptures, which are found 
in manuscripts transcribed by a learned person, or for a learned person, from some cele- 
brated or corrected copy, are to be preferred to those written for private use ; and the 
readings found in antient and unpointed manuscripts, written for the use of the syna- 
gogue, are better than those found in Masoretic exemplars. 

(6.) The first erased reading of a manuscript is not always an error of 
the copyist, nor is the second substituted one always the belter reading . 
Both are to be tried by the touchstone of the antient versions , and in the 
Pentateuch by the Samaritan text aho . 

(7.) Other things being equah Michaelis states , that a Lectionarium is 
not of equal value with a manuscript of the same antiquity that contains 
the boohs of the New Testament complete, because in the former the text 
was frequently altered , according to the readings which were most approved 
at the time when it was written ; though Lectionaria sometimes have read - 
ings of great importance . 1 * 

(8.) In reckoning up the number of manuscripts for or against any par- 
ticular reading , it will be necessary , 

First, To distinguish properly between one manuscript and another , that 
the same MS. be not counted twice over, and consequently one pass for two. 

This (it is now ascertained) was the case with the Codex B ease, which has been proved 
to be the same which was the second of Stephens’s MSS. marked jS, and not two distinct 
manuscripts, Wherever, therefore, a number of manuscripts bears evident marks of 
having been transcribed in succession, that is, each of them being first a copy taken from 
another, and then an original having a copy taken from it, or where all are taken from 
one common original, they are not to be considered as furnishing so many different in- 
stances of various reading, but should be estimated only as one, whose authority resolves 
itself into that of the first manuscript. Inattention to this circumstance has contributed to 
increase the number of various readings beyond what they really are. But though two 
manuscripts, one of which is copied from the other, can be admitted only as a single evi- 
dence, yet, if a word is faded in the more antient one, it may be supplied from that which 
is more modern. Manuscripts which, though not immediately copied from each other, 
exhibit a great uniformity in their readings, seem to be the produce of the same country, 
and to have, as it were, the usual readings of that country. A set of manuscripts of this 
is to be considered as the same edition, in which it is of no importance to the 
authenticity of a reading whether five hundred or five thousand copies be taken. Numbers 
alone, therefore, decide nothing in the present instance, 

i Introduction, Vol, ii. p. 161. 

Ch. V.] 

In the Old and New Testaments. 

18 $ 

Secondly) We must carefully observe what part of the Scriptures the 
several manuscripts actually contain, and in what respects they are de- 

There are few MSS. extant, which contain either the Old or the New Testament en- 
tire, and have been transmitted to us without loss and damage. Of the MSS. of the Old 
Testament, which have been described in pp. 87 — 89. supra , not one is complete ; and 
with regard to the New Testament, we have already seen that the Codices Alexandrinus, 
Vaticanus, and Leicestreiisis, are mutilated. Other MSS. contain the Gospels, or the 
Gospels and Acts of the Apostles ; others the Acts and Pauline Epistles, or the Catholic 
Epistles, or both ; others have the Epistles by themselves ; and there are several manu- 
scripts which contain the whole of 'the New Testament except the Apocalypse; to which 
are to be added the Lectionaries, or select portions of the New Testament, which were 
read as lessons, or Epistles and Gospels in the service of the church. Now it is abso- 
lutely necessary that we observe the state and condition of MSS., in order that we may 
avoid false conclusions and inferences from the non- production of a manuscript for a 
various reading by any editor of the New Testament, who professedly gives an account of 
the various readings of MSS., as if it therefore did not vary, when in reality the text itself 
was wanting therein; and also in order that w f e may not cite a MS. in favour of any 
reading, where in truth such MS. has no reading at all. From inattention to this 
obvious rule, Amelotte 1 cited the first codex of Stephens, the Complutensian, Cardinal 
Ximenes’s, Cisneros’s, and that of Alcala, as so many different manuscripts, when, in fact, 
there was but one and the same printed edition. 

Thirdly, ice must also observe whether the MSS . have been entirely 
and exactly collated \ 

Sometimes, perhaps, only the more noted and important texts have been consulted. This 
was the case with the Codex Claromontanus, as collated by Beza, and also with the MSS. 
of the Apostolic Epistles in the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, which have only been 
collated for the controverted clause in 1 Johnv. 7. Sometimes also it happens that MSS. 
have come late into the hands of editors of the New Testament, after the printing was 
begun, and consequently only part of the various lections have been exhibited. This was 
the case both with Dr. Mill and with Griesbach in their critical editions. Again, it 
sometimes happens that a manuscript has been collated in the beginning, but, from some 
accident or other, the collation of it has not been completed. This was the case with the 
Codex Cyprius, of which we had no entire collation until Dr. Scholz printed one at the 
end of his Dissertation on that manuscript 2 , and also with the Codex Montfortianus* which 
was collated in the Gospels and most parts of the Acts of the Apostles, and in part of the 
Epistle to the Romans. Nor had we any complete collation of it, until the Rev. Dr* 
Barrett printed one at the end of his fac-simile of the Codex Rescriptus of Matthew’s 
Gospels, now preserved in the library of Trinity College, Dublin. 3 It is therefore abso- 
lutely necessary that we should inquire into these particulars, that we may not be deceived 
ourselves, or deceive others, by alleging an authority that has never been examined. 

2. The best and most antient printer Editions, an account of 
which is given in the Appendix to this volume, are so far only to be 
admitted in evidence, as they are immediately taken from manuscripts* 
The various readings, however, which they contain, are not to be 
neglected, particularly those of the Hebrew Bibles printed in Rabbi 
Ben Chaim's or Hajim’s Masoretical edition. In the New Testa- 
ment, as the readings found in all the printed editions rest on the 
authority of a few manuscripts which are not always the most antient, 
the concurrence of all these editions cannot confer great authority on 
the readings adopted by them, in opposition to others which appear 
to be well supported. 

l Amelotte, the bitter enemy of the learned and pious Port- Royalists, published a 
French translation of the New Testament in four volumes, Svo., in the years 1666— 1668. 
In his notes he boasted of having consulted all the manuscripts in Europe, which he after - 
wards confessed he had not seen / Chalmers’s Biographical Dictionary, voL ii. pp,95— 97. 

a Scholz, Curae Critics* in Historiam Textus Evangeliorum, pp. SO— 90. 

3 Barrett, Evangelium secundum Matthamm ex Codice Rescripto m Bibliotheca LQJ- 
legii SS, Trinitatis juxta Dublin. Appendix, pp. 5— 65. 


On the Various Readings [Part L 

3. The antient Versions (of which an account has already been 
given), though not free from error, nevertheless afford important as- 
sistance towards determining the true readings of passages, as they 
show what readings their authors considered to be genuine : but it is 
necessary that we consult only correct texts of such versions. 

(I.) Antietit Versions are a legitimate source of emendation , unless upon 
collation vue have reason to conclude that ike translators of them to ere 
clearly mistaken . 

One or two examples will illustrate this remark. In James v. 12. many MSS,, the 
Arabic of the London Polyglott, the Armenian and the Sclavonic versions, as also the 
Monk Antiochus, Oecumenius, and TheophylaCt, read iva jtti? ety vroKpuriv TrecrTirye, lest 
ye fall into hypocrisy. But the Codices Alexandrinus and Vatieanus, and several other 
manuscripts, besides the printed editions, and the Syriac, Arabic (as edited by Erpenius), 
Coptic, Ethiopic, Vulgate, and other versions, all read the clause as it appears in our 
authorised English version, which is unquestionably the true reading, viz. Iva fjur\ vtto 
K purtv Trscnre, lest ye fall into condemnation . Again, in 1 Pet. V. 13. we read, atrira^rai 
vp as 7) €v Bapv\(avi avyeicXeKTri. Here some word is evidently to be supplied, in order to 
complete tbe sense. Dr. Mill conjectures that Peter’s wife w r as intended. But the word 
cttKKyo-ia, churchy is found in the margin of two manuscripts (4 and 33 of Griesbach’s no- 
tation), and in the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, and Vulgate versions. It ought therefore 
to be received into the text. It is very properly supplied in Italic characters by tbe 
learned and venerable translators of our authorised English version, who render the verse 
thus ; — The church that is at Babylon, elected together with yon, saluteth you. Once 
more, in 2 Pet. ii. 2. the apostle, predicting the false teachers who would corrupt the 
church by their destructive doctrines, says, that many shall follow, avrcov rais aira\eiais, 
their destructions , that is, their pernicious ways (as our translators have rendered it), their 
heretics of destruction or destructive opinions , mentioned in the preceding verse. This 
reading, however, is only found in the MSS. 43 and 65 of Griesbach’s notation (both 
of the twelfth century), and in a few others of no note. But instead of it, we read, 
atreA-yeieuy, that is, lasciviousnesses or uncleannesses, in the Codices A. B. C. (Alexan- 
drinus, Vatieanus, and Ephremi) : and in more than fifty other manuscripts, most of 
which are among the most antient, correct, and authentic. This is also the reading of 
both the Syriac, all the Arabic, the Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Sclavonic, and Vulgate 
versions, and of the fathers Chrysostom, Theophilus, Oecumenius, and Jerome. The 
word aa‘e\yetcus J lasciviousnesses, is, therefore, beyond all doubt, the true reading, and is 
very properly printed as such by Griesbach : and it points out the nature of the heresy 
intended by the apostle. It was a sort of antinomianism. The heretics alluded to, pam- 
pered and indulged the lusts of the flesh ; and if the Nicolaitans are meant, it is very ap- 
plicable to them, for they taught the community of wives, &c. 

(2.) Antient manuscripts , supported by some of the antient versions and 
by ike sense , render a reading certainly right , though it be not found in the 
more modern . 

In Isa. Iviii. 10. we read. If thou draw out thy sold to the hungry . This, Bishop Lowth 
remarks, is & correct rendering of the present Hebrew text, but it is an obscure phrase, and 
without example in any other place. Instead, however, of (nop^shck) thy soul, eight 
manuscripts (three of which are antient) read “pn*? (whsm bk) thy bread; and so it is 
rendered in the Syriac version. The proper reading thereof is, draw out (or bring forth!) 
thy bread . ‘Tbe Septuagint version expresses both words, rov aprov ck rijs ipvxys <rav, thy 
bread from thy said . 1 

(3.) The concurrence of the antient versions is sufficient to establish a 
reading as certainly right , token the sense or parallel place shows both the 
propriety of that reading , and the corruption of what is found in the copies 
of the original . 

* Gerard’s Institutes, p. 271. Lowth’s Isaiah, vol. ii. p, 343. Another eminent com- 
mentator, however, defends the common reading and rendering. He is of opinion that 
the emendation above proposed is a gloss, and should not be adopted. « To draw out the 
smd *m relieving the poor, is to do it not of constraint or necessity, — but cheerfully, and 
is boA nervous and elegant. His soul pities, and his hand gives.”— (Dr. A. Clarke on 
Isa. Iviii. 10.} 

Ch. V.] 

In the Old and Netto Testaments. 


Thus, in Prov. xviii. 21. (22 of English version) we read, Whoso findeth a wife, find - 
eth a good thing. This is not true in every instance ; it contradicts other maxims of the 
inspired writer, as Dr. Kennicott has shown, who is sufficiently eloquent on this occasion. 
He therefore conjectured that Solomon originally expressed himself thus ; he that findeth 
a good wife, findeth a good thing , and obtaineth favour from the Lord. This reading de- 
rives a strong confirmation from the fact, that the epithet for good is uniformly found in 
the Septuagint Greek, the Syriac, Arabic, and Vulgate versions. It is likewise found 
in two antient manuscript Chaldee paraphrases of the Book of Proverbs (one of which is 
at Cambridge, and the other in the King of Prussia’s library at Berlin). All these con- 
curring testimonies', together with the necessary sense of the text itself, prove that the 
Hebrew originally read, and ought to be so restored, He that findeth a good wife , findeth 
a good thing . 1 

(4.) The Samaritan Pentateuch , which is only a different copy of the 
same original text , being more antient than the Babylonish captivity , and 
religiously preserved in the antient Hebrew characters , is a legitimate 
source of emendation . Although it differs in many places from the present 
Hebrew text 9 and these differences have been made objections against its au- 
thority , because it has been taken for granted that it must be wrong wherever 
it is not conformable to the Hebrew; yet as this assumption proceeds on the 
erroneous supposition of the absolute integrity of the Masoretic copies , it 
ought not to be regarded . 

Bauer has given a considerable number of rules for the application 
of the Samaritan Pentateuch to the determination of various readings, 
which he has illustrated by examples, for the whole of which we have 
not room. The following are such of his remarks as are of most ge- 
neral application. 

(1.) Where the Samaritan text has the larger sections repeated from the other chapters 
of the Pentateuch, it is interpolated, and the Hebrew text is on no account to he corrected 
from it. 

(2.) Where the Samaritan text contains readings in support of the peculiar dogmas en- 
tertained by the Samaritans, there it is to be considered as altered by the fraud of that sect. 

(3.) Where the Samaritan text more strictly follows the rules of grammar, avoiding 
enallages of number and gender j and on the other hand, where the Hebrew text departs 
from those rules, not frequently expressing the enallage both of number and gender — in 
such cases the reading of the Hebrew text is preferable to that of the Samaritan. 

(4.) Where the Samaritan text contains a clearer reading, which removes any difficulty 
or obscurity, by the addition of a single word or phrase, there it has evidently been cor- 
rected by the Samaritan doctors, and the reading of the Hebrew copies is to be preferred. 
The application of this and the preceding canon to most of the corrections which Houbi- 
gant conceived might be drawn from the Samaritan Pentateuch, will show that those cor- 
rections are of no value whatever. 

(5.) Where a reading in the Samaritan text departs from that of the Hebrew text, in the 
guttural letters, the true reading is to be found in the latter. 

(6.) A various reading in the Samaritan text, which appears to be derived from the re- 
semblance of the shape of the letters, is to be rejected, 

^7.) A reading in the Samaritan text which is entirely unsupported by the authority of 
the Masoretic copies, and of the antient versions, is not to be regarded as the true one, and 
is not preferable to the Masoretic reading. 

(8.) If the Samaritan text agrees with the Septuagint version (as frequently is the case), 
their testimony is to be considered but as one, from the very close affinity subsisting 
between them. 

(9.) A various reading of the Samaritan Pentateuch is of the greatest value when it is 
confirmed by the antient Versions of Aquila, and Syramacbus, by the Syriac version, the 
Chaldee paraphrase, and the best and most antient Hebrew MSS. Thus, in Gen. xxii. 
IS. instead of, behold behind him “lUN (achcr), the Samaritan reads "rnN (achad) one, and 
with this reading agree the Septuagint and Syriac versions, the Targum or Chaldee 
paraphrase of Onkelos, and menty-nine of the manuscripts collated by Dr. Kennicott, 
together with thirteen of those collated by De Kossi. The proper rendering therefore of 
this verse is, And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked; and behold a ram caught in a 
thicket by his horns . 

l Kennicott’s Second Dissertation on the Hebrew Text, pp. 189—192. ^ Dr. Gerard 
has given four additional instances of the above rule. Institutes, pp. 272, 2 / 


On the Various Readings [Part I. 

The two following canons are selected from Dr. Gerard’s Institutes of Biblical Criti- 
cism, (pp. 270, 271.) with a few corrections. 

(10.) Readings in the Pentateuch supported by the Samaritan copy, a few Hebrew 
MSS., the antient versions, parallel places, and the sense, are certainly right* though they 
are not found in the generality of Hebrew manusciipts nor in editions. 

Thus in Gen. 1. 2 5. after ye shall carry tip my hones from hence , the parallel text in 
Exod, xiii. 19. twelve manuscripts, the Samaritan Text, the Septuagint, Syriac, Arabic, 
and Vulgate versions, all add with you. These words, therefore, are part of the text, and 
are very properly incorporated in it by Dr. Boothroyd, in his new translation of the 

In Lev. ix. 21. the common reading is, as Moses commanded: but in thirty manuscripts 
the Samaritan text, the Septuagint and Arabic versions, and the Targum of Onkelos, we 
read, As Jehovah commanded Moses : which unquestionably is the true reading, and is 
supported not only by these authorities, but also by the whole chapter itself. 

(H.) Readings in the Pentateuch, supported by the Samaritan text, antient versions, 
parallel places, and the sense, are certainly right, though they are not found in any (or in 
only one) Hebrew manuscript now extant. 

Thus in Gen. ii. 24. we read. And they shall he one Jlesh ; but it is they two in the Sama- 
ritan text, and in the Septuagint, Syriac, Old Italic, Vulgate, and Arabic versions compared 
with Matt. xix. 5. Mark x. 8. 1 Cor. vi. 16. Eph.v. 31., Philo Judjeus, Tertullian, 
Epiphanius, Jerome, and Augustine. In Exod. vi. 20. after she bare him Aaron and 
Moses, u and Miriam their sister,” is added in the Samaritan text, the Septuagint and 
Syriac versions, and in one manuscript. There is no doubt but that it forms part of the 
sacred text. Again, in Exod. xii. 40. we read, The sojourning of the children of Israel, 
who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. But this is not true, for it 
was only two hundred and fifteen years s and it contradicts Gal. iii. 17. which says, that 
it was only four hundred and thirty years from the calling of Abraham, two hundred and 
fifteen of which elapsed before the going into Egypt. (Compare Gen. xii. 4. xvii. 1. 21. 
xxv : 26. and xlvii. 9.) The following is the verse as it appears in all the MSS. and 
editions of the Samaritan Pentateuch, confirmed by the Alexandrian Manuscript of the 
Septuagint. Xow the sojourning of the children of Israel , and of their fathers, which they 
sojourned in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt , was four hundred and thirty years. 
This is the true reading, and removes all doubt and obscurity. It is proper to remark, 
that the last three examples of additional passages from the Samaritan text are introduced 
by Dr. Boothroyd into the text of his translation of the Bible. 

(5.) Such antient versions as ice re immediately made Jrom the original 
are proper sources cf emendation , taken oar present Hebrexc and Greek 
tw an u scripts disagree $ and tkeir respective value is in proportion to their 
priority tj date, their being made Jrom accurate exemplars, their being lite- 
ral translations , and their being confirmed by one another , and, as Jar as 
respects the Pentateuch , by the Samaritan text; Jor the sole dissent oj ver- 
sions, unsupported by other authorities , constitutes only a dubious lection . 

Before, however, we admit any various reading into the text on the authority of an 
antient version, we must be certain that the text of such version has not been corrupted. 
And no various reading can be derived from the modern Latin Versions of the Greek or 
Unential versions, which are given in the Polyglotts, because the Latin translators have in 
some instances mistaken the sense of such Oriental versions. 

(6.) The Greek version of the Old Testament , called the Septuagint , hein* 
the most antient and illustrious , is prejerable to the Old Syriac version of 
the same portion (J Scripture ; but the Old Syriac version of the Mete Tes- 
tament , being executed at the dose oj the apostolic age , and consequently the 
most antient of all the translations ojthe Mete Testament, is preferable to 
every other version of it. ‘ 

The readings pointed out by the Greek version are sometimes the genuine lections, even 
wheu they are not found in any Hebrew manuscripts now eatant. For- instocTln 

*7 "Harfrtf ^ 10 -f d i n l b - nt ' ,er ■' Ani when they were 

mihsjwld^c. Here there is a manifest deficiency in all the Hebrew MSS. and printed 

° - * 16 authons , ed En S li&h version, not being able to find that any 
tog was said on this occasion, ventured to intimate that there was a conversation inde- 

* a Th^ h T e r fo V rende *? d to firs ? clause of the verse, and Cain talked with Abelh is 
ap® deficiency, which exists m all the MSS. and editions, is supplied in the 
Septuagint which is supported by the Samaritan text, the Syriac and Vulgate Latin 

Versions, the two Chaldee Targuras, the Greek translation of Aquila,and by the passage as 

Ch. V.] In the Old and New Testaments . 189 

cited by Philo : all of which supply the deficient words, Let us go out into the jield. There 
is no doubt, therefore, that they form part of the original text, and that the verse ought to 
be translated thus : And Cain said unto Abel his brother , Let us go out into the field. And it 
came to pass, when they were in the field , that Cam rose up againstAbel his brother , and slew him* 
Again, in Acts xiii. 18. we read about the time of forty years suffered he (krpoirofpoprjcrev) 
their manners in the wilderness; that is, he dealt indulgently with them. However the 
Israelites provoked Jehovah, he mercifully bore with and endured them. On which clause 
we find in the margin of our authorised version the following conjecture : Gr. €rpoieo<popr)(rey, 
perhaps for erpo(pocpop7}<Tev 3 bore or fed them as a nurse beareth or feedeth her child . This 
conjecture is confirmed by the Codices Alexandrinus, Ephremi, and Basileensis, and four 
others of less note, as well as by the Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, and Ethiopic versions, and th4 
quotations in some of the fathers ; all of which read erpo<po<po pricey, he nourished and fed 
them , or bore them about in his arms as a tender nurse does her child . This reading agrees 
excellently with the scope of the place, and is at least of equal value with that in the com- 
monly received text. Griesbach has therefore admitted it, and excluded the other. Both 
readings, indeed, when rightly understood, speak nearly the same sense; but the latter is 
the most expressive, and agrees best with St. Paul’s discourse, and with the history to which 
he alludes. The same form of expression occurs in Exod. xix. 4. Numb. xi. 12. Isa. 
xlvi. 3, 4. and lxiii. 9. 

( 7 .) The Oldest Lathi Versions of the New Testament, being of very high 
antiquity , notwithstanding they contain some false readings , are nevertheless 
of great value , because they lead to a discovery of the readings in very antient 
Greek manuscripts , that existed prior to the date of any that are now extant \ 
The vulgate,for instance , in its present state , being (as we have already seen) 
a mixture of the Old Italic version , and that of Jerome, points out the state 
of the original text, partly in the first and partly in the fourth century, and 
it gives great authority to those readings which it clearly indicates : it also 
contains several which are preferable to the present readings , and are sup- 
ported by some of the best and oldest manuscripts . 

Thus the literal rendering of Jer. li. 19. is — He is the former of all things, and the iad 
of his inheritance, which is unintelligible. The venerable translators of our authorised 
version have supplied Israel is the rod, &c. most probably from the parallel sentence in 
Jer. x. 16.; and that this is the true reading is evident from the Vulgate version, which 
reads et Israel sceptrum heraditatis ejus, and also from the Chaldee paraphrase, which is 
further supported by twenty-three manuscripts collated by Dr. Kennicott. 1 

( 8 .) The Syriac version being very literal , ascertains clearly the readings 
which it followed, to which, on account of its antiquity, it gives great autho- 
rity; and it has preserved some, that appear to be genuine* 

Thus in l 2 Sam. xv. 7. we read, It came to pass after forty years , which is manifestly 
erroneous, though supported by the commonly printed Vulgate, the Septuagint, and the 
Chaldee. David reigned only forty years, and if we follow the text, the rebellion of 
Absalom would follow long after the death of David. In order to obviate this difficulty, 
some commentators have proposed to date from the time when David was first anointed by 
the prophet Samuel. But the Syriac version , (which is confirmed by the Arabic version, by 
Josephus, by the Sixtine edition of the Vulgate, by several manuscripts of the same version, 
and by Theodoiet,) reads four. Most learned men are of opinion that d'SOIN (arbay m ) 
forty, is an error for jmN (arur) four. Accordingly, Dr. Boothroyd has adopted the 
reading of the Syriac version, and translates at the end of four years, in his new version of 
the Old Testament. 

( 9 .) Every deviation in the antient versions, both of the Old and New Testa* 
meats, is not to be considered as a proof of a various reading in the original 
manuscript whence it was taken ; for the translate?^ may have mistaken the 
original word, or he may have given it a signification different from what it 
bears at present, and this is the case particularly with the Septuagint, 

( 10 .) One or a few antient versions may render a reading probable, when 
it is strongly supported by the sense, connection , or parallel places , in oppo* 

i Gerard’s Institutes, p. 87. Kennieott’s Second Dissertation, pp. 439, 440. and his 
Dissertatio Generalis, § 41. at the end of the second volume of his Critical Edition of the 
Hebrew Bible. 

190 On the Various Readings [Part I. 

ution to one that does not agree with these , though found in other versions 
and in manuscripts. 

Thus, in Gen. xiv. 20. we read, And he gave tithes of all. This leaves it uncertain whether 
Meldiiaedek or Abram gave tithes. It rather seems to be the former, but it was the latter. 
In Heb. vii. 4. as well as the Samaritan text, and the Septuagint version, we have Abram 
gate to him a tithe of all, edajtcev avrsa ’'Afipa/j. Se/cern p> otto iravTicv * which is probably the 
genuine reading. 

A'min, in Isa. xl. 5. we read, All flesh shall see together , which is an imperfect sentence. 
The trandators of our authorised version have supplied it, referring to the glory of God 
mentioned in the preceding part of the verse. This omission is antient, being prior to the 
Chaldee, Syriac, and Vulgate versions: but all the copies of the Septuagint version and the 
parallel passage in Isa. lii. 10. read, shall see the salvation of our God, which lection is ac- 
knowledged by Luke(iii. 6.). Bishop Lowth therefore considers it as genuine, and has 
admitted it into the text of his translation of Isaiah. 

(11,) The concurrence of all or most of the antient versions , in a reading 
not found in manuscripts now extant, renders such reading probable, if it be 
agreeable to the sense , though not absolutely contrary to it 1 

Thus, in 1 Sam. ix. 7. we read, What shall we bnng the man (lo-ish)? In one of the 

manuscripts collated by Dr. Kennicott, (No. 1S2. a manuscript of the fourteenth century) 
we read CW (ia-ish h-elohisi), to the man of God ? which is confirmed by the 

Chaldee paraphrase, and by the Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, and Arabic versions, and is 
probably the genuine reading. 

(12.) Of the Chaldee paraphrases when manuscripts vary , those are to 
he preferred which are the more antient, and which have not been corrected, 
according to ike present Masoretic text . 

(13.) The Masora 3 , Talmud, and Talmudical writers are also sources of 
emendation, but of no great authority in readings of any moment. 

With regard to the Masora, that reading only is to be admitted from it 
which is supported by antient versions, and is in perfect harmony with 
the context, the analogy of language, and parallel passages. 

In Isa. ix. 2. (Heb. ; 3 of English version) we read. Thou hast multiplied the nation, 
and not the jay. The Ketib has ^ (la) not , with which the Vulgate version, and that of 
Symmacims agree ; but the Keri reads (li) to him, or it, that is, the nation ; and with this 
agree the Chaldee paraphrase, the Septuagint, the Vulgate version, the readings in the text 
of fifteen manuscripts collated by Dr. Kennicott, and six of those collated by M. De Rossi. 
The latter reading is not only best supported, but it is also excellently in unison with the 
preceding verse. Bishop Lowth has therefore adopted it, and translates thus : Thou hast 
multiplied the nation, thou hast increased their joy. 

Headings derived From the Talmud and Talmudical writers are only to 
be admitted, when they expressly cite the Hebrew text, and when their 
readings are confirmed by manuscripts. In judging of the various lections 
obtained from the Jewish writers, those which are collated from the 
Talmud, (though few in number,) are of great value, and equal to those 
furnished by Aquila, Symmachus, the Syriac version, and the Chaldee pa- 
raphrase. But such as are derived from the commentaries and lexicons of 
the Rabbins, who lived between the tenth and thirteenth centuries, are 
(according to Prof. Bauer) to be accounted equal with the readings of 
manuscripts. 4 

4. Parallel Passages afford a very material help in determin- 
ing various readings, where all other assistance fails. Cappel 5 and 

* , Gerard ’ s Institutes, pp. 2SO, SSI. where several additional examples are given, for 
which we have not room. 

« See an account of the Chaldee paraphrases, pp. 33— 38. of this volume. 

3 See an account of the Masora in pp. 163— 166. supra, and of the Talmud in Part II. 
R^okI. Chap. II. Sect. II. § 6. infra , of this volume. 

4 Bauer, Critica Sacra, pp. 444, 445. 

V&e ins Critica Sacra, (lib, i. cc. ill — xiv,) vol. i, pp. 14—135. 870. edition, with 
Frafcssor Vogel's notes. ’ 

Ch. V.] 

In the Old and New Testaments . 


Dr. Kennicott 1 have shown at great length what use may be made of 
parallel passages, in order to ascertain the genuine reading where it 
may be dubious, or to restore it where it may be lost. Professor 
Bauer has given an abstract of Cappel’s collection of parallel pas- 
sages in pp.235 — 238. of his Critica Sacra; and two or three instances 
will show the importance of them in ascertaining a true reading in the 
New Testament. 

In Matt. i. 4?. not fewer than fourteen manuscripts and two of the fathers 
read Apiva^a^ Ammadau ; but the parallel passge in 1 Chron. ii. 10. has 
Aminadaz, which therefore is the genuine reading of the Evangelist. Again, 
in Matt, xxvii. 46. instead of {lama), many MSS. read \sipcc ( leima ), 
(lima), or Xepa (lema) ; but a reference to Psal.xxii. 2 . ( Heb.; or 1. of 
English version), shows that Xccpa is the proper reading. Once more, in 
Matt. ii. 23. the common reading is Na^ctpcT (Nazarex) ; but in the Codices 
C. E. K. (Ephremi, Basileensis B. VI. 21. and Cyprius,) and many other 
MSS. of less note, besides several printed editions, and the Coptic, Arme- 
nian, Italic, Vulgate, and Anglo-Saxon versions, and also in the quotations 
of Eusebius and Cyril, we read NccfapeSr (Nazare th). And that this is the true 
reading is evident from comparing the numerous other passages of the four 
Gospels in which this place is called Nazai’eth and not Nazaret . 

(1.) Where Parallel Passages , together with the sense , support the reading 
of antient manuscripts , they show that such reading is perfectly right . 

Thus in Isa. lxi. 4. we read, they shall build the old wastes : but the sentence is incom- 
plete, as we know not who are the builders. After they shall build , four MSS. (two of 
which are antient) add -po (MaaiacH) they that spring from thee : and this reading is con- 
firmed by lviii. 1 2. where the sentence is the very same, this word being added. Bishop 
Lowth therefore receives it into the text, and translates the sentence thus : 

And they that spring from thee shall build up the ruins of old times. 

(2.) In a text evidently corrupted , a parallel place may suggest a reading 
perfectly genuine. 2 

Thus, in the common printed editions of Judg. vii. 18. we read, Say, of the Lord and 
of Gideon . This is defective. The venerable English translators have, with great pro- 
priety, supplied the sword , (hcrce) from the successful exploit of Gideon, related 

in v. 20. The word which those learned but much traduced men thus supplied from 
a parallel place, proves to be right : for it is found in ten manuscripts, besides the Chaldee 
Paraphrase, and the Syriac and Arabic Versions. In like manner they have supplied 
the word fourth in 2 Kings xxv. 3. from Jer. lii. 6. to complete the sense ; and this supply 
is also confirmed by the different versions. 

(3.) To determine with accuracy the authority of parallel passages in the 
Old Testament , they should he divided into four classes, viz . 

1 . Passages containing the historical narration of an event which occurred but once* 

or the record of a prayer or speech but once uttered. JEx. gr. Jos. xix. 50. xxiv, so, 
comp, with Jud. ii. 9. 2 Sam. xxii. with Ps. xviii. The Book of Kings, with that of 

Chronicles. 2 Kings xxv. with Jer. lii. 2 Kings xviii. to xx. with Isa. xxxvi. to xxxix. 
Isa. ii. 2. 4. with Micah iv. 1 — 3. 

2. Passages containing a command, and either a repetition of it, or a record of its being 
obeyed : Ex. xx. 2 — 17. with Deut. v. 6 — 22. Ex. xxv. to xxx. with xxxvi. to xxxix, 
Levit. xi. 13 — 19. with Deut. xiv. 12 — 18. Ezekiel xii. 6. with 7. 

3. Proverbial sayings, or f expressions frequently repeated: Num. xxi. 28* 29. and 
xxiv. 17. with Jer. xlviii- 45, 4 6. Ezek. v. 7. with xi. 12. Jer, v. 9. and 29. with ix, 9, 
Psalm xlii. 5. 11. withxliii. 5. Jer. x. 25. with Psalm Ixxix, 6, 7. Jer. x. 16. with li.19. 
Isa. xxiv. 17, 18, with Jer. xlviii. 43, 44. 

1 In his first Dissertation on the Hebrew Text* pp. 33, 79. 198. 444, 457. 461. 481. 

484. 502. 510. - 

2 Gerard’s Institutes, p. 273. Where the reader will find several additional illustrations 
of this canon. 

192 On the Various Headings [Part i. 

4. Records of the same genealogies, 2 Giron, with several chapters of Genesis, and Ezra, 
’With Nehemiuh. 

In any such passages as these, where there is a difference in numbers or 
names — where there is more than a verbal difference in records of the 
same transaction — or where there is even a verbal difference in copies of 
the same prayer or speech, in the printed text, but not in manuscripts and 
versions, there it is erroneous, and ought to be corrected . 1 * 

5. Quotations from the Old aiid New Testaments in the Writings of 
the Fathers are an emendatory source which is by no means to be 
neglected ; but only correct editions of their works should be con- 
sulted. Among the antient fathers of the church, those are particu- 
larly worthy of attention and collation who wrote in the Greek lan- 
guage ; because they spoke, and read, and wrote that very language 
in which the sacred writings of the New Testament were originally 
composed. The phrase and diction of those writings was, therefore, 
familiar to them ; they naturally expressed themselves in the Scripture 
style and language. When they referred to any texts of Scripture, 
or discoursed more at large upon them, they would of course be 
guided by the original Greek of the New Testament and not by any 
version that had been made, and might possibly vary from it ; whereas 
the Latin fathers being only accustomed to the Latin version , it is as 
much to be expected that they should conform their language, quo- 
tations, and comments to it ; though, perhaps, upon some occasions, 
and according to their ability, taking notice also of the Greek original. 
A Latin father will be an evidence for the Latin version, where he 
takes no express notice of the Greek : and according to the clearness 
and fulness of that evidence, we may argue, that the Latin version, or 
some copy or copies ^of it, had that reading in his time, which is cited 
by him. And this may deserve to be attended to with regard to any 
omissions in the Greek MSS. which the Latin may be thought to have 
supplied : but still the testimony of the Latin father in this case will 
prove nothing more than the reading of a Latin version : by what 
authority that version is supported, is a matter of further enquiry. 
Indeed where it can be shown that a Latin father followed no parti- 
cular version, but translated directly for himself (as Tertullian and 
Cyprian have frequently done) ; this brings us somewhat nearer to 
some manuscript in the original language, and may be considered, 
according as it shall happen to be circumstantiated, as a distinct tes- 
timony for the reading of some Greek MS. in particular . 3 

In order to judge of the true reading of any text of Scripture, 
from any quotation of it, with which we meet in the writings of the 
fathers, the following criteria have been laid down, principally by 
J. D. Michaelis. 

(1.) In considering the testimony of a single father , we are in the first 
place to enquire in what age he lived, and what were his abilities f Whether 
he was a person of learning and judgment , of accuracy and exactness , or 

1 Hamilton’s Codex Oriticus of the Hebrew Bible, p. 18. 

® It is to be observed that the Greek Fathers generally quote the Old Testament from 
1*8® Sepfcuagmt version. 

3 Br, Berriman’s Dissertation on l Tim. iii. 16, pp, 28, 29. 

Ch. V.] 

In the Old and New Testaments . 


otherwise? And also •whether the treatise or work , in which the Scriptures 
are so quoted, be the genuine production of the writer whose name it bears f 

( 2 .) Wherever it is certain that the quotations were actually taken from 
manuscripts , they are of very great importance in deciding on the authen- 
ticity of a true reading , and are in general to be preferred to any manu- 
scripts of the Greek Testament now extant , the oldest of which cannot be 
placed earlier than the end of the fourth or the commencement of the fifth 
century . 

Ir therefore a father, who flourished in the fifth and subsequent ages, has a particular 
reading, it is the same as if we found it in a manuscript of that time. 

( 3 .) As the fathers have frequently, though not always , quoted from 
memory , it is necessary to make a distinction between those passages which 
they expressly declare that they have taken literally from manuscripts , and 
those which they quote without any such assurance . 

> ( 4 .) We are not therefore to reject the quotation of a father , because it 
differs from the common text , but must first examine whether it cannot be 
discovered in manuscripts of the New Testament ; and to enable those who 
have access to manuscripts to make this comparison with as muck ease as 
possible, we should endeavour to procure the most accurate and copious ex- 
tracts from the writings of the fathers . 

If a reading, then, which had the appearance of being an error of memory, is actually 
discovered in manuscripts, we may without hesitation put it down in the list of various 
readings : its antiquity will be determined by the age in which the father who quoted it 
lived : and the manuscripts which contain it will afford a secondary evidence of its age 
and authenticity. But we must not judge of the writings of all the fathers, nor of all 
the writings of the same father, in the same manner. They may be divided into three 
different classes. 1. Commentaries, to which may be referred also those discourses which 
were written as expositions of parts of the Bible. 2. Works of Education. 3. Polemical 
writings. In the first it is evident that the book which is expounded is not quoted from 
memory, but the author, in writing his commentary, had lying before him a manuscript of 
the Greek Testament. But with respect to the polemical writings of the fathers, those 
who are acquainted with their mode of disputation, and know that their principal object is 
sometimes to confound their adversaries rather than to support the truths will refer the 
quotations which appear in these productions to the lowest class. If a father was acquainted 
with more than one reading to a passage, he would certainly quote that which best suited 
his purpose, and with which he could most easily confute his opponents. It is therefore 
not sufficient to know what reading he quotes, but we must likewise consider where he 
quotes it : and those therefore who collect various readings from the writings of the 
antient fathers, would do well to point out the book, chapter, edition, and page, in order 
to enable the reader to form a proper judgment. 

( 5 .) It is necessary to make an accurate distinction between a quotation 
properly so called, and a passage of Scripture introduced and applied as 
part of a discourse . 

For if a writer, in treating any known doctrine of the Bible, uses the words of Scrip- 
ture, he is at liberty to add or subtract, to contract or dilate them in. a manner that is best 
adapted to the tenor of his discourse. But even such passages are not unworthy of notice, 
for if they are different in different manuscripts, and any one of these latter coincides with 
the former, the coincidence is not to be considered as a matter of chance. But when no 
manuscript corroborates the reading in such a passage, it is intitled to no voice in deciding 
on the text of the Greek Testament, 

( 6 .) In collecting readings from the works of the fathers, an accurate 
distinction must be made between those who wrote in Greek , and those who 
wrote in another language . 

Properly speaking, the former only are to be considered when we select readings for the 
Greek Testament, and the latter immediately relate to the text of the version from which 
they are qtioted, unless particular mention be made -of the Greek, or the writer, like 
Jerome, made a practice of correcting the’ translation of his country from the original. 

( 7 .) It must also be observed whether a father takes notice of a text only 
once , or but seldom, or very often . 



[Part I. 

On the Various Headings 

For sl frequent repetition will make the slighter kinds of diffeience deserving of more 
attention ; whereas a single instance or two of that sort will be the more easily imputed to 
a slip of the memory,, or a casual mistake. 

(8.) It is necessary to observe whether an author he uniform and con- 
sistent with himself or different and various . 

If a text be found differently expressed by the same author, we shall often be at a loss 
to know which he esteemed the right : and sometimes, perhaps, he may be wrong in each j 
and yet sometimes, too, it maybe easily discovered, that one passage was designed to ex- 
press the text more exactly, and another was only a reference by memory, and from thence 
proceeded the variation. An example of this we have in Chrysostom. In his comment 
upon Acts xx. 28. he reads it €iac\r}cricLV rov ©eou, Church of God, three times (though Dr. 
Mill cites him there for the reading of Ivupiou [Lord) : but in his comment on Eph. iv. 12. 
he casually refers to this text, and quotes it probably by memory, and there be puts it down 
€KK\7}(nav rov K vpiov, that is, Church of tke^ Lord. 

(9.) The writings of the fathers are to be compared , one with another ; 
and an inquiry must be instituted , what testimony arises from them upon 
the whole - 

If it be a point, of which they generally take notice, or in which they are agreed ; if we 
meet with no contrary voice, or none worthy of being regarded, or with some who argue 
for it, while others criticise or comment upon it, this will afford the clearest and strongest 
testimony that can be either desired or obtained. 

(10.) We must compare the evidence arising from an examination of the 
writings of the fathers , with that which appears to be the reading of the 
Greek manuscripts in general , and see how well they agree together . Where 
the MSS. in general and the fathers do agree , it must be something very 
extraordinary that will make it reasonable to believe that they are altogether 
in a mistake. Nay , that evidence from the fathers must be very strong , 
which will ?nake it reasonable to think the Greek MSS. agreeing in general 
among themselves , are mistaken. 

A casual citation of a text will not be sufficient to prove them so mistaken, nor a bare 
comment upon a version, where it varies from the original : much less will tills do, where 
opposite testimonies can be produced from Greek writers ; and especially where those 
opposite testimonies are so full upon the point, as supposes and implies that they found 
the reading which they mention in the Greek copies which were in use in their days. If 
any instance can be found in which it can be clearly proved from the writings of the 
fathers, that the gcueral and allowed reading of the Greek copies, in the early ages of the 
church was different from the general reading of the Greek MSS. in our days, w’e should 
without hesitation give up such general reading of our present MSS. But it is very 
questionable whether one single instance of this sort can any where be found : and those 
persons who raise general clamours about the corruption of the manuscripts of the sacred 
writings, unsupported by any solid proof s, are no more to be heard, but still more to be con- 
demned, than those who speak in this manner of the writings of the fathers. But in a 
matter of doubt and uncertainty, where the MSS. of the sacred writings in the original 
language are divided, the united testimony of the fathers will turn the scale in favour of 
the side for which they appear, and will more powerfully establish and confirm the general 
reading of the Scripture MSS. where they are agreed, 1 43 

(II.) The Fathers having in general quoted the Stuqrtures very exactly , 
as they had it in their copies , whenever a reading followed by them agrees 
with any antient manuscript , it is in all probability the genuine reading. 

Thus, in most copies of Matt, vi. 1. we read. Take heed that you do not your alms 
[eterip.o(rwv l v ] : hut in the Codices Vaticanus and Cantabrigiensis, and three or four other 
MS>. of less antiquity, as also in the old Italic and Vulgate versions and most of the 
bathers, we read oinatocrv^u, righteousness, that is, acts of righteousness. This reading is 
most agreeable to the inode of speech which obtained among the Jews * and consequently 
is the genuine one. Griesbach has therefore inserted it in the text. 

1 Bemraan’s Dissertation, p. 38. 

s That the Jews in the time of Christ understood the word rijn*. Sir ccmtrvvv, rizhleims- 
*£**> the sense of alras > abundantly proved by Mr. John Gregory, Works op 59 60 
iLondon, 1684, 4to.) and especially by Dr. Lightfoot, Works, yoUk 'pp ^3, isi! foKo! 

Ch. V.] 

In the Old and New Testaments . 


Again, in Luke x. 1. we read that the Lord appointed othei' seventy disciples. The Co- 
dices Vaticanus, Cantabrigiensis, and Medicmus (No. 42. of Griesbach’s notation), to- 
gether with the Persian, Armenian, Vulgate, and four copies of the Old Italic versions, 
read epSo/jLpKovTa 8 vo, seventy-two; and in this reading they are supported by eleve^ 
Fathers principally of the Latin or Western Church. On the contrary, all the other 
MSS. have simply ejSSo^/fovra, seventy, in which reading they are supported by the 
learned Greek Fathers, Eusebius, Gregory Bishop of Nyssa, Cyril, Eutbymius, Theophy- 
lact, and Theophanes, and by Irenseus, Tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome Damasus, and 
others among the Latin writers. The common reading, therefore, is established as the 
genuine one by the concurrence of the Fathers with MSS. 

Once more, in John i. 28. we read that These things were dene in Bethabara . This 
lection is found in thirty-one manuscripts, in the printed editions, in the Armenian ver- 
sion, and a late exemplar of the Sclavonic version, and is preferred by Origen, and after 
him by Eusebius, Saidas, Jerome, and others. But it is certain that, instead of Bn&ctr 
j 3apa, vve ought to read Bn&avia, Bethany, which word is found in the Codices Alexan- 
drinus, Vaticanus, Ephremi, Basileensis, Harleianus No. 56 84, Seidelii, Stephani 97, 
Stephani ir, Regius No 2243- (now 48) and Vaticanus 354, in B. and V. of Matthau’s 
notation, in upwards of one hundred other MSS. of less antiquity, and in the Syriac, 
Armenian, Persic, Coptic, and Vulgate versions, and in three MSS. of the Sclavonic 
version (one of the twelfth, the other two of the fourteenth century). The reading of 
By&avia, Bethany, is also confirmed by the most eminent of the primitive Fathers jjrior to 
the time of Origen (who is supposed to have first changed the reading) 5 and is unques- 
tionably the genuine one. Griesbach has therefore inserted it in the text. 

(12.) The total silence of The Fathers concerning a reading , which Would 
have confirmed their opinion in a controverted point , justly renders that 
reading suspicious , unless such total silence can be satisfactorily accounted 

This negative argument against a reading will be of little weight where it respects the 
writings of one single author only : and where it is founded only upon some particular 
part of his \\ orks, and such author has himself taken notice of the text in other places, 
it will be of no weight at all. Nay, if but one or two only have made mention of a text, 
this will be a better proof that it was read in their days, than any omission of their con- 
temporaries, or of those that lived after them, will be a proof that it was not. But let us 
take this argument in the strongest light, and let the utmost possible be made of it ; it can 
only furnish matter of doubt and enquiry ; it can at most amount to no more than pro- 
bable and presumptive evidence, and nothing can be positively and certainly concluded 
from it. One plain positive proof from the original MSS. or the antient versions, will be 
able to weigh it down, unless it can be shown that they have been altered and corrupted. 

6. The fragments of heretical Writings are not to be over- 
looked in the search for various readings: for the supposition is 
rash, that they generally corrupted the text of all parts of the sacred 
Writings. 1 

7. Critical Conjecture is not alone a legitimate source of emend- 
ation, nor is it at all to be applied, unless the text is manifestly 
corrupted, and in the most urgent necessity : for the conjectural 
criticism of an interested party, in his own cause, and in defiance of 
positive evidence, is little better than subornation of testimony in a 
court of law. 

(1.) Conjectural Readings , strongly supported by the sense, connection, 
the nature of the language , or similar texts, may sometimes be probable, es- 
pecially when it can be shown that they would easily have given occasion to 
the present reading : and readings first suggested by conjecture have some- 
times been afterwards found to be actually in manuscripts , 0 ? in some version • 

Thus, in Gen. i. 8. the clause, And God saw that it was good, is wanting to complete the 
account of the second dayjs work qf creation, but it is found in the tenth verse m the mid- 
dle of the narrative of the third day’s work. Hence, many learned men have conjectured, 
either, 1. That the sentence, And the evening and the morning were the second day, has 
been transposed from verse 10. to verse 8. ; or 2. That the clause. And God saw that it 

1 Stuart’s Elements of Interpretation, p. 119, (Andoyer ? 1822.) 

O 2 

190 On the Various 'Readings [Part I. 

was <rood, has been transposed from verse 8. to verse 10. The latter conjecture affords the 
most probable reading, and is to be preferred, being confirmed by the Septuagint version ; 
the translators of which most evidently found this clause in the copies which they used. 

* (2.) A Conjectural Reading, unsupported by any manuscripts, and unau- 

thorised by similarity of letters , hy the connection and context of the passage 
itself) and by the analogy of faith) is manifestly to be rejected . 

In the address of James to the apostles convened at Jerusalem, he gives it as his opinion 
that they should write to the believing Gentiles that they abstain from pollutions of idols , and 
fornication. , and things strangled, and blood . (Acts xv. 20.) As the question related to the 
ceremonial and not to the moral law, the celebrated critic Dr. Bentley conjectured that for 
iropveias, fornication, we should read x 0l P 6Las > swine's flesh ; and in this conjecture he lias 
been followed by Mr. Reeves in tbe Scholia to his beautiful and useful editions of the 
Bible. But this reading is supported by no manuscript whatever, nor by any similarity 
of the letters, nor by the context of the passage ; for in the encyclical letter of the Apos- 
tles (ver. 25.) we read fornication. If x 0l P etas had been the correct lection in the first in- 
stance, it would have been unquestionably retained in the second. And when it is 
recollected that the word ir opv&a, which in our version is rendered fornication, means not 
only the crime against chastity usually so called, but also adultery and prostitution of every 
kind (for which very many of the feasts of the idolatrous Gentiles were notorious), the 
force of the apostolic prohibition will be evident ; and the genuineness of the commonly 
received reading will be established in opposition to Bentley’s arbitrary conjecture, 1 

No one should attempt this kind of emendation who is not most 
deeply skilled in the sacred languages ; nor should critical conjec- 
tures ever be admitted into the text, for we never can be certain of 
the truth of merely conjectural readings. Were these indeed to be 
admitted into the text, the utmost confusion and uncertainty would 
necessarily be created. The diligence and modesty of the Maso- 
rites are in this respect worthy of our imitation : they invariably in- 
serted their conjectures in the margin of their manuscripts, but most 
religiously abstained from altering the text according to their hypo- 
theses : and it is to be regretted that their example has not been 
followed by some modern translators of the Old and New Testament 
(and especially of the latter); who, in order to support doctrines 
which have no foundation whatever in the sacred writings, have not 
hesitated to obtrude their conjectures into the text. This is parti- 
cularly the case with the Greek and English New Testament edited 
by Dr. Mace in 1 729, whose bold and unhallowed emendations were 
exposed by Dr. Twells, and also with the editors of the (Unitarian) 
improved version of the New Testament, whose conjectures and 
erroneous criticisms and interpretations have been most ably exposed 
by the Rev. Drs. Nares and Laurence, the Quarterly and Eclectic 
Reviewers, and other eminent critics. 

V. Having thus stated the causes of various readings, and offered 
a few cautions with regard to the sources whence the true lection is 
to be determined, it only remains that we submit to the reader’s at- 
tention a few general rules, by which an accurate judgment may be 
formed concerning various readings. 

1 . TVe mast take care , that we do not attempt to correct that which does 
not require emendation . The earlier manuscript , caeteris paribus, is more 
likely to be right than the later , because every subsequent copy is liable to 
new errors . ^ 1 “ 

1 Other examples of unsuppoited conjectural emendations may be seen in Pritii Introd. 
&a Lectionem Novi Testamenti, p. 393. ; Clerici Ars Critica, tom. ii. part in. sect. i. 
c. 16. § 11. ; and in Wetstein’s Prolegom. ad Nov, Test, pp, 170. et seq. 

Ch. V.] 

In the Old and Hem Testaments . 


This rule will prevent us from being misled by an immoderate desire of correcting 
what we may not understand, or what may at a first glance appear to be unsuitable to the 
genius of the Hebrew or Greek language, or to the design of an author. Wherever, 
therefore, any difficulty presents itself, it will be necessary previously to consider whether 
it may not be obviated in some other manner, before we have recourse to emendation; 
and even ingeniously to acknowledge our ignorance, rather than indulge a petulant licen- 
tiousness of making corrections. Examples are not wanting of critics on the sacred 
writings, who have violated this obvious rule, particularly Houbigant, in the notes to his 
edition of the Hebrew Bible. 

2. That reading in •which all the recensions of the best copies agree , and 
which is supported by all the antient versions , is to be accounted genuine. 

3. Readings are certainly right , and that in the very highest sense , at all 
consistent with the existence of any various reading , which are supported by 
several of the most antient manuscripts , or by the majority of them, — by all 
or most of the antient versions, — by quotations, — by parallel places {if there 
be any), — and by the sensei even though such readings should not be found 
in the common printed editions , nor perhaps in any printed edition 

Thus, in the common printed editions of I Kings i, 20. we read. And thou, my Lord, 0 
King , the eyes of all Israel are upo?i thee , which is not sense. Instead of rrriKI, And thou, 
we have nnj?, And now, in ninety-one of the manuscripts collated by Dr. Kennicott, in 
the Chaldee paraphrase, and in the Arabic and Vulgate versions. This is the genuine 
reading, and is required by the sense. 

Again, in Matt. xxv. 29., we read. From him that hath not shall be taken away even that 
which he hath,' kcu ‘O EXEI ap&poe rat. This is found in all the antient copies, and in the 
majority of manuscripts, and in all the versions but one. But in twenty-two other manu- 
scripts, and in the Vulgate, as well as in some copies of the Syriac, Sclavonic, and Old 
Italic versions, and six Fathers, we read 'O AOKEI EXEIN, that which he seemeth to 
have. But it is wrong, and has been corrected from Luke viii. IS. 

4s Greater is the authority of a reading, found in only a few manuscripts 
©/different characters , dates, and countries, than in many manuscripts of a 
similar complexion . But, of manuscripts of the same family or recension , 
the reading of the greater number is of' most weight . The evidence of ma- 
nuscripts is to be weighed, not enumerated : for the agreement of several 
manuscripts is of no authority, unless their genealogy (if we may be allowed 
the term) is known ; because it is possible that a hundred manuscripts that 
now agree together may have descended from one and the same source . 

5. Readings are certainly right, which are supported by a few antient 
manuscripts, in conjunction with the antient versions, quotations, parallel 
places (if any), and the sense; though they should not be found inmost 
manuscript o r printed editions, especially when the rejection of them in the 
latter can be easily accounted for . 

The common reading of Psalm xxviii. 8. is. The Lord is their strength (lomo); 
but there is no antecedent. In six manuscripts and ail the versions, however, we read, 
(leammo) of his people, which completes the sense. This emendation is pronounced 
by Bp. Horsley, to be “ unquestionable he has therefore incorporated it injke text of 
his New Version of the Psalms, and has translated the sentence thus : 

Jehovah is the strength of his people. 

In most manuscripts and printed editions of Eph. v. 9. we read, The fruit of the Spirit 
(rov wevparos^, is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth . But it is the fruit of the 
light (rov <buro s) in the Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Claromontanus, Augi- 
ensis, San-germanensis, and Boernerianus, and six others of less note, as well as in the 
Syriac version, the Arabic version edited by Erpenius, the Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, 
Armenian, Old Italic, and Vulgate versions ; and it is so quoted by seven of the fathers. 
$ar os, light, is therefore considered by most critics as the true reading, because the Spirit 
is not mentioned in any part of the context ; and this reading is inserted m the text as 
genuine by Griesbach. The connection, indeed, shows that this last is the true reading, 
which was altered by some unknown copyist or critic, because it was uncommon, trom 
Gal. v. 22. As light (Eph. v. 8.) not only means the divine influence upon the soul, but 

l Gerard’s Institutes, pp. 266 — 268; 

O 3 


On the Various Readings 


also the Gospel, the apostle Paul might with admirable propriety say, that the fruit of the 
light (that is, of the Gospel) is in all goodness, and righteousness , and truth : — goodness, 
ayaSwtrvvi}, in the principle and disposition; — righteousness , Sucaiocrvw f, the exercise of 
that goodness in the whole conduct oflife ; — and truth, a A^eta, the director of that prin- 
ciple and of its exercise to the glory of God and the good of mankind. 

6 . Of two readings , both of which are supported bp manuscripts, the best 
is to be preferreds but if both of them exhibit good senses , then that reading 
which gives the best sense is to be adopted , But , in order to determine the 
nature of the whole passage , the genius of the writer , and not the mere opi- 
nions and sentiments of particular interpreters , are to be consulted . 

In Psalm ii. 6- there are two readings, one of which is found in the Masoretic copies 
and the other in the Septuagint version. The former may be literally translated thus : Yet 
will I anoint my King upon my holy hill of Sion. This reading is supported by weighty 
evidence, viz. the Masora, the quotation of it in Actsiv. 27., the Greek versions of Aquila 
and Symmachus, the Chaldee paraphrase, and Jerome. The other reading, which is found 
in the Septuagint, may be thus rendered : But as for me, by him I am appointed king on Sion , , 
Ms holy mountain . Now here the authoiity for the two readings is nearly equal : but if we 
examine their goodness, we shall see that the Masoretic lection is to be preferred, as beino* 
more grammatically correct, and more suited to the context. ? & 

7 . A good various reading , though supported only by one or two witnesses 
tf approved character , is to be preferred, 

8 . In the prophetical and poetical boohs of the Old Testament , as well as 
in the New Testament 9 that reading is best which accords with the poetical 
parallelism . 

The subject of poetical parallelism is fully considered in Part II. Book II. Chap. II. 
infra . The application of this canon to the various readings of the Old Testament has 
long been recognised ; but as its applicability to the New Testament is not so obvious, we 
shall illustrate it by an example drawn from the latter. 

Thus in Matt. vii. 2. we read, 

Kv 6 yap Kpivere, Kpi&ijirecr&e. 

Kai ev « perpeiTe, avTiperpribrjaeTcu vfjuv. 

For, with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged ; 

And with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 

For amtpt-TpTifrniTeTaL, shall be measured again, (which is the reading of the common 
printed editions, of the manuscript by Matrhasi noted with the letter H, of the manuscript 
13 of Griesbach’s notation, of the Vulgate version, of some manuscripts of the Old Italic 
version, of Polycarp, of Clement of Alexandria, of Origen sometimes, and of the Latin 
Fathers), we read perpnfrno-erai, shall be measured , in the Codices Vaticanus, Harleianus 
No. 5684, Cyprius, Stephani v , Regius 2243* (now 48), and Vaticanus ‘S54, all of which 
are manuscripts in uncial diameters of great antiquity, in twelve manuscripts in smaller 
characters, by Griesbach, numbered 1, 17, 33, 77, 108, 114, 117, 131, 218, 236 of Pro 
fessor Birch’s Collation, the Evangelisteria, numbered 32 and 36, and seventy other 
manuscripts of inferior note, and by the manuscripts distinguished by Matthau with the 
Letters B and V (both of die eighth century), a. c. and d. (all of the tenth or eleventh 
century), and by eight others of Matthau’s manuscripts of less note, by the Armenian and 
Ethiopic versions, by the copies of the Old Italic version preserved at Verona Vercelli Forli 
and Toledo, by Clement of Rome, by Origen once, by the author of the dialogue against 
Marcion, by Theodoret, Theophylact, Euthymius, Chrysocepbalus, and other Greek 
writers. The reading of prrpv^aerai, therefore, being supported bv such an overwhelm- 
ing body of evidence, is very properly introduced into the text by Griesbach as preferable 
to the common reading of apriperpij^crerat; and it is further demanded by the parallelsism 
For Kjn/tan (judgment), Kptve re (ye judge), and npi^aecr^ (ye shall be judged), in the 
first hue, require in order to preserve the balance of the period, perpw (measure) perpnr, 
(ye measure), and perpnSrrjae rai (it shall be measured), in the second line, i ¥ 

9 . Of two readings of equal or nearly equal authority , that is to be me- 
f erred 7 which is most agreeable to the style of the sacred writer . 

If, therefore, one of two readings in the New Testament exhibits the Hebrew idiom, 
it is preferable to one that is good Greek, because the latter has the appearance of being 
gloss of some Greek writer, which the former does not present. Thus in Jude 1., 

„ j Bp ‘ ■?!?!? “ Literature, p. 144. In pp. 206. 329-331. of the same work the 
Teader wiU find other instructive examples of the ennou above giv'en. 

In the Old and Ne*w Testaments - 


Ch. V.] 

v?7 lao-fiepois, sanctified , is a better lection than rfyaiz 7j t uevots, beloved ; because the former is 
more in unison with the usage of the apostles in their salutations, and in the commence- 
ment of their Epistles. In Acts xvii. 26. the reading, «£ kvos atpuros, of one Hood, is 
preferable to evos , of one (which occurs in Rom. is. 10.), because it is in unison with 
the Hebrew style of writing. In John vi. 69. the common reading, Thou curt the Christ, 
the Son of the living God , Xptros b vios rov ©eou rov fyvros, is preferable to that of the 
holy one of God , & aryios rov ©eov, which Gricsbach has admitted into the text, omitting 
'rovfavros, on the authority of the Codices Vaticanus, Ephretni, Cantabrigiensis, Stephani rj, 
the Coptic version, and some other authorities of less note. That eminent critic, in- 
deed, allows that the received lection is not to be despised ; but we may observe that its 
genuineness is not only confirmed by the consentient testimonies of many MSS., versions, 
and fathers, but also from the fact and from the style of writing adopted by the Evange- 
lists. For the appellation of holy one of God is no where applied to our Saviour, except 
in the confession of the demoniac. (Mark i. 24. Luke iv. 54.) In Acts iv. 27. 30. Jesus 
is termed ayios irais, holy child ; but not holy one of God. On the contrary, the appel- 
lation of Christ, the Son of God , occurs repeatedly in the New Testament, and especially 
in this Gospel of John (i. 50. ; 49. of English version, and xi. 27.), and is elsewhere ex- 
pressly applied to him by Peter, See Matt, xvi. 16. The common reading, therefore, of 
John vi. 69. is to be preferred, in opposition to that adopted by Griesbach, as being most 
agreeable to the style of the sacred writer. 

10 . That reading is to he preferred which is most agreeable to the context, 
and to the author’s design in writing. 

Every -writer, and much more a divinely inspired writer, is, presumed to write in such 
a manner, as not to contradict himself either knowingly or willingly, and to write through- 
out with a due regard to the order and connection of things. Now in Mark i. 2., for ev 
t ois 7 rpo(pi)T(US, in the prophets, several manuscripts read ev Hcaia ra tt po^ry, in the pro- 
phet Isaiah, Both Mill and Griesbach reject the common reading. But as the context 
shows that the Evangelist cited not one but two prophets, viz. Mai. iii. L, and Isa. xl. 3., 
the common reading ought to be retained, especially as it is supported by the Codex 
Alexandrinus, the Ethiop’c and Coptic versions, and the quotations of many fathers. 

11 . A reading , whose source is clearly proved to he erroneous, must he 

12 . Of two readings, neither of which is unsuitable to the sense, either 
of which may have naturally arisen from the other, and both of which are 
supported by manuscripts, versions, and quotations in the writings of the 
fathers ; the one will be more probable than the other, in proportion to the 
preponderance of the evidence that supports it : and that preponderance 
admits a great variety of degrees , 1 

In Acts xx. 28. we read, Feed the church of God , which he hath purchased with his own 
blood. Of this sentence there are not fewer than six various readings, viz. 1. Tr}v 
€KK\i}i nav rov Xpirov, the church of Christ ; 2. Tou 0eou, of God , which lection is expunged 
by Griesbach, who prefers, 3. Tov Kvpiov, of the Lord. This reading is also preferred by 
Wetstoin ; 4. Tov Kuptou /cat ©eou, f the Lord arid God , which Griesbach has inserted in 
his inner margin ; 5. Tou ©eou /cat Kvpiov, of the God and Lord s and 6. Too K vptov ©coy, 
of the Lord God.- in order to determine which of these readings is to be adopted, it is 
necessary briefly to review the various authorities which have been adduced for each. 

1. Tou Xpirov — Of Christ. This reading is supported by no Greek MSS.; but it is 
found in the iirinted editions of the Peschito or old Syriac version, even in the Vatican 
copies of the Nestorians. This reading is also found in the Arabic version edited by 
Erpenius (which was made from the Syriac), and it seems to be supported by Origen 
(probably, for the passage is ambiguous) , by Athanasius, the anonymous author of the 
first dialogue against the Macedonians, Theodoret, the interpolated Epistle of Ignatius, 
Basil, and Ful<rentius. The popish synod of the Malabar Christians, held m 1599, under 
the direction of Mendoza, the Portuguese archbishop of Goa, states that the Nestorians 
inserted this reading at the instigation of the devil, instignnte diaboh / 

o. Tou ©eou — Of God . This is the common reading. It is supported by that most 
antient and venerable MS., B, or the Codex Vaticanus*, and by seventeen others, none 

t Gerard’s Institutes, p. 27 5. . . A , . , . , , , . « „ 

a From Professor Birch (of Copenhagen)' finding nothing noted m his collation of the 
■Vatican MS. respecting the reading of ©eou, (though he expressly says, that if any variety 
of reading had taken place in that MS. it could not have escaped him, as he intended tc 
examine this 'remarkable place -abote all o'hets in all tbo MSS, came m Ins way,. 

O 4 

[Part I. 

£00 On the Various Readings 

of wliich indeed are older than the eleventh century, and many of them are more modem. 
It is also supported by two MSS. of the Peschito or Old Syriac version, collated by 
Professor Lee for bis edition of the Syriac New Testament ; and which, he states, are 
much more antient than those upon which the printed text was formed. This reading is 
also found in a very antient Syriac MS. in the Vatican Library, in the Latin Vulgate, the 
Ethiopia, according to Dr. Mill, through Griesbach thinks it doubtful ; and it is quoted 
or referred to by Ignatius, Tertullian, Athanasius, Basil, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Chry- 
sostom, Celestine bishop of Rome, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and eleven other fathers 
of tlie Greek and Latin Church, besides the sixth Synod in Trullo (held a. b. 680), and 
the second Nicene Synod (held a, b. 787). 

3. Tov Kvpiov — • Of the Lord. This reading is supported by thirteen manuscripts, viz. 
the Codices Alexandrinus, Cantabrigiensis, Ephremi, and Laudianus, (all of which are 
written in uncial letters, of great and iudisputed antiquity, and derived from different and 
independent sources), the Moscow MS. which formerly belonged to Chrysostom, accord- 
ing to Matthai (on Eph. iv. 9.), who has noted it with the letter B., and eight others of 
less note. This reading is also found in the Coptic, Sahidic, in the margin of the 
Philoxenian or later Syriac, in the Old Italic as contained in the Codex Cantabrigiensis, 
and as edited by Sabatier, and in the Armenian versions. The Ethiopic version has- 
likewise been cited, as exhibiting the reading of I< vpiov, Lord , but its evidence is indecisive, 
the same word being used therein for both Lord and God. Griesbach thinks it probable 
that this version, reads Ki jpiov, from the consentient testimony of the Coptic and Armenian 
versions. Among the fathers, this reading is supported by Eusebius, Athanasius, Chry- 
sostom, Ammonius, Maximus, Antonius, Ibas, Lucifer, Jerome, Augustine, Sedulius, 
Alcimus, the author of the pretended Apostolical Constitutions, and the second Council 
of Carthage (which, however, in the Greek, reads ©eou, of God ). 1 

4. Too Kvpiov kou Qeov — Of the Lord and God . This reading is supported only by 
the Codex G. (Passionei, assigned by Blanchini to the eighth, but by Montfaucon to 
the ninth century,) and sixty-three other MSS. ; none of which, though they form the 
majority in point of number, are among the most correct and authoritative. It is also- 
found in the Sclavonic version, but it is not cited by one of the fathers ; and is printed ins 
the Complutensian and Plantin editions. 

5. TovQeov icat Kvpiov — Of the God and Lord. This reading occurs only in the MS. 
by Griesbach numbered 47 : it is an apograph transcribed in the sixteenth century by 
John Faber of Deventer from one written in 1 293. 

6. Tou Kvpiov ©eou — Of the Lord God . This reading is found only in one MS, 
(95 of Griesbach’s notation) of the fifteenth century, and the incorrect Arabic version* 
printed in the Paris and London Polyglatts ; and it is cited by Theophylact alone, 
among the fathers. 

Of these six readings, No. 2. Tav Qeov , Of God, No, 3. Tou Kvpiov, Of the Lord , and 
No. 4. Tou Kvpiov kcu Qeov, Of the Lord and God, are best supported by external testi- 
mony, and it is the preponderance of the evidence adduced for each, that must determine 
which of them is the genuine reading. 

JL The testimony of manuscripts is pretty equally divided between these three readings. 

Though Kvpiov is supported by the greater number of uncial MSS. (viz. the Codices 
Alexandrinus, Cantabrigiensis, Ephremi, and Laudianus,) yet ©eou is supported by the 
Codes Vaticanus, which is of the highest authority j, and K vpiov kcu Qeov, though deficient 
in this respect (for G. or the Codex Passionei, as we have noticed, is not earlier than the 
eighth or ninth century), yet it is most numerously supported by manuscripts of different 
families, and especially by the Moscow manuscripts, and by the Complutensiara edition. 

3. The antient versions, supporting Qeov and Kvpiov , are equal to each other in num- 
ber indeed, but those which support the former are superior in weight. For the Latin 
Vulgate, the Peschito or old Syriac, and the Ethiopic, in favour of ©eou, are of higher 
authority than their competitors, the Coptic, Sahidic, aud Armenian. The compound 
reading K vpiov Kai Qeov is unsupported by any but the Sclavonic which is closely con- 
nected with the Moscow manuscripts. 

Griesbach endeavours to set aside the testimony furnished by the Vatican MS. But it 
is a fact that Qeov is the reading of that manuscript: for (1.) it WAS there in '1738* 
when it was collated by the very learned Thomas Wagstaffe, then at Rome, for Dr. 
Berrinpan, who was at that time engaged in preparing for publication his work on the 
genuineness of 1 Tim iii. 16 . ; and (2.) ©eou IS the reading of the Vatican MS., for a 
transcnjrt of it tms obtained by Sir, R. Taylor from the keeper of the Vatican library for 
the second London edition of Griesbach’s Greek Testament, printed by him in 1818, with 
equal beauty and accuracy. 

1 Irenaeus is commonly cited as an authority for the reading tou Kvpiov : but Mr, 
Burton has shown that much use cannot be made of his authority in deciding t his reading. 
(Testimonies of Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 17/) 

Ch. V.] I n the Old and New Testaments . 201 

3. The testimony of the fathers is greatly in favour of ©eou. For though a considerable 
number of counter- testimonies in favour of Kvpiov is named by Wetstein, and copied by 
Griesbach ; yet no citations from thence are adduced by either, which leads us to suspect, 
that their testimony is either spurious, slight, or else refuted by the express citations on 
the other side. Thus, the objection of Athanasius to the phrase, ** the blood of God,” as 
<e being no where used in Scripture, and to be reckoned among the daring fabrications of 
the Arians,” recorded by Wetstein 1 , is abundantly refuted by his own counter- testimony, 
citing the received reading of Acts xx. 28. and by the frequent use of the phrase by the 
orthodox fathers, Ignatius, Tertullian, Leontius, Fulgentius, Bede, Theophylaet, and others 
above enumerated. The objection, therefore, was urged inconsiderately, and probably in 
the warmth of controversy ; in which Athanasius was perpetually engaged with the Arians, 
his incessant persecutors. 

Kvpiov kcu ©eou, is unsupported by the fathers before Theophylaet ; and is contradicted 
by his testimony in favour of ©eou. 

From this abstract, it appears to the writer of these pages, that the external evidence 
preponderates, upon the whole, in favour of ©eou ; and this is further confirmed by the 
internal evidence. For, in the first place, the expression cKfcXycrta rov ©eou, church of 
God, is in unison with the style of St. Paul 2 ; and it occurs in not fewer than eleven 
passages of his epistles 3 ; while the phrase etcfc\7}<na rov Kvpiov, church of the Lord , occurs 
no where in the New Testament. And, secondly, ©eou might* easily give occasion to the 
other readings, though none of these could so easily give occasion to ©eou. If (as Michae- 
lis remarks) the Evangelist Luke wrote ©eou, the origin of Kvpiov and Xptrov may be 
explained either as corrections of the text or as marginal notes; because “the blood of 
God” is a very extraordinary expression ; but if he had written Kvpiov, it is inconceivable 
how any one should alter it into ©eou. And on this latter supposition, the great number 
of various readings is inexplicable. It seems as if different transcribers had found a dif- 
ficulty in the passage, and that each corrected according to his own judgment. 

Upon the whole, then, the received reading, eKKA^aia tou ©eou, church of God, is bet- 
ter supported than any of the other readings, and, consequently, we may conclude that it 
was the identical expression uttered by Paul, and recorded by Luke. 4 

13. Whenever two different readings occur , one of which seems difficult , 
and obscure, but which may be explained by the help of antiquity, and a 
more accurate knowledge of the language, whereas the other is so easy as to 
be obvious to the meanest capacity , the Latter reading is to be suspected ; 
because the former is more in unison with the style of the sacred writers , 
which, abounding with Hebraisms , is repugnant to the genius of the pure 
or strictly classical Greek language . 

No transcriber would designedly change a clear into an obscure reading, nor is it 
possible that an inadvertency should make so happy a mistake as to produce a reading 
that perplexes indeed the ignorant, but is understood and approved by the learned. 
This canon is the touchstone which distinguishes the true critics from the false. Bengel, 
Wetstein, and Griesbach, critics of the first rank, have admitted its authority ; but those 

i Nov. 'Test. vol. i. p.597. 2 See canon 9. pp. 198,199. siqrra, 

3 Compare 1 Cor. i; 2. x. 32. xi, 16. 22. xv. 9. 2 Cor. i. 1. Gal. i. 13. 1 Thess. ii, 

14. 2 Thess. i. 4. and 1 Tim. iii. 5. 15. The phrase eKK\7)<na rov Kvpiov, congregation of 
the Lord , is of frequent occurrence in the Septuagint version, whence it might have crept 
into the text of the MSS. that support it, particularly of the Codex Alexandrmus, which 
was written in Egypt, where the Septuagint version was made. 

4 Nov. Test, a Griesbach, tom.ii. pp. 112— 117. and Appendix, p. (34.) 2d edit. 
(Halm Saxonum, 1806.) Dr. Hales, on Faith in the Trinity, vol. ii. pp. 105—131. 
Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. p. 335. Nolan’s Inquiry into 
the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp. 286^289. 516—518. Mr. N. has given at 
length the quotatioiis from the writings of the fathers in which ©eou is found. It is 
worthy of remark, that Mr. Wakefield, who was a professed and conscientious Unitarian, 
decides in favour of rov 0eov, of God, as the genuine reading : but instead of rendering 
the words rov iStov atparos, in the following sentence, “ with his own blood,” he translates 
them by ct his own tion and he adduces some passages from Greek and Roman writers, 
to show that aipa and sanguis (blood) are used to signify a son or near relative. If, in- 
deed, Acts xx. 27. were the only passage, where the phrase “ purchasing with his own 
blood” occurred, we might receive this saying : but as the redemption of man is, through- 
out the New Testament, ascribed exclusively to the vicarious and sacrificial death of 
Christ, it is not likely that this very unusual meaning should apply here. — (Dr. A. 
Clarke, in loc.) 

202 On the Various Headings [Part I. 

of inferior order generally prefer the easy reading, for no other reason than because its 
meaning is most obvious. 

14 . If for a passage , that is not absolutely necessary to the construction , 
various readings are founds that differ materially, from each other , we have 
reason to suspect its authenticity ,* and likewise that all the readings are 
interpolations of transcribers who have attempted by different methods to 
supply the seeming deficiency of the original . 

This rule, however, must not be carried to the extreme, nor is a single variation sufficient 
to justify our suspicion of a word or phrase, though its omission affects not the sense, or 
even though the construction would be improved by its absence : for, in a book that has 
been so frequently transcribed as the New Testament, mistakes were unavoidable, and 
therefore a single deviation alone can lead us to no immediate conclusion. 

15. A reading is to be rejected , in respect to which plain evidence is 
found that it has undergone a designed alteration . 

Such alteration may have taken place (1.) From doctrinal reasons; — (2.) From moral 
and practical reasons (3.) From historical and geographical doubts, (Matt, viii. 28. 
compared with Mark v. 1.); — (4.) From the desire of reconciling passages contradictory 
with each other ; — - (.5.) From the desire of making the discourse more intensive ; hence 
many emphatic readings have originated ; — (6.) From the comparison of many manu- 
scripts, the readings of which have been amalgamated; — (7.) From a comparison of 
parallel passages. 1 

16. j Readings, which are evidently glosses, or interpolations, are inva- 
riably to be rejected . 

(1.) Gtaesare betrayed, 1, When the words do not agree with the scope and context 
qf the passage ; 2, When they are evidently foreign to the style of the sacred writer ; 
3, When there is evident tautology ; 4. When words, which are best absent, are most 
unaccountably introduced ; 5. When certain words are more correctly disposed in a dif- 
ferent place ; and, lastly, when phrases are joined together, the latter of which is much 
dearer than the former. 

(2. “ An interpolation is sometimes betrayed by the circumstance of its being delivered 
in the language of a later church. In the time of the Apostles the word Christ was never 
used as the proper name of a person, but as an epithet expressive of the ministry of Jesus, 
and was frequently applied as synonymous to 4 Son of God.* The expression, there- 
fore, 4 Christ is the Son of God,’ Actsviii. 37. is a kind of tautology, and is almost as 
absurd as to say Christ is the Messiah, that is, the anointed is the anointed. But the word 
being used in later ages as a proper name, this impropriety was not perceived by the person 
who obtruded the passage on the text.” 

(3.) et If one or more words that may be considered as an addition to a passage, are 
found only in manuscripts, but in none of the most antient versions, nor in the quotations of 
the early fathers, we have reason to suspect an interpolation.” In Acts viii. 39. the Alex- 
andrian manuscript reads thus : IINA [AriONEnESENEniTGNEYNOTXONANTEAOSAE] 
KTHPIIA2ENTON4»IAinnON — The Spt . \_hoh? fell upon the eunuch , hut the AngeV\ of the Ford 
caught away Philip' The words between brackets, Michaelis thinks, are spurious; and Gries- 
bach decidedly pronounces them to be an emendation of the copyist. They are found in six 
manuscripts cited by him, but these are not antient; and they are also in the Armenian 
version executed in the end of the fourth, or early in the fifth century, and in the Sclavonic 
version executed in the ninth century. We are justified, therefore, in stating that they are 
not to be received into the sacred text. 

17* Expressions that are less emphatic, unless the scope and context of the 
sacred writer require emphasis , are more likely to be the genuine reading, 
than readings different from them, but which have , or seem to have, greater 
force or emphasis . For copyists , like commentators, who have but a smattering 
of learning , are mightily pleased with emphases . & 

18. That reading is to be preferred, which gives a sense apparently false, 
but which, on thorough investigation, proves to be the true one . 

19. Various readings , which have most clearly been occasioned by the 

errors or negligence of transcribers, are to be rejected . How such readings 
may be caused, has already been shown in pp. 177 — l&Q.supi’a. & 

1 Stuart’s Elements of Interpr, p. 113, 

In the Old and New Testaments . 


Ch.V.] - 

20. Leclionaries , or Lesson Booh , used in the early Christian church , are 
not admissible as evidence for various readings . 

Whenever, therefore, I r]crov$, Jesus, ade\(pot, brethren , or similar words, (which were 
antiently prefixed to the lessons accordingly as the latter were taken from the Gospels or 
Epistles, and which are found only in lectionaries,) are found at the beginning of a lesson, 
they are to be considered as suspicious ; and fifty manuscripts that contain them have no 
weight against the same number which omit them, 

21. j Readings introduced into the Greek text from Latin versions are to 
be rejected . 

22. A reading that is contradictory to history and geography is to be 
rejected , especially when it is not confirmed by manuscripts . 

In Acts xii. 25. we read that Barnabas and Saul returned from (e£) Jerusalem, where 
seven manuscripts, two manuscripts (5 and 7) of the Sclavonic version, and the Arabic 
version in Bishop Walton’s Polyglott, have gif, to Jerusalem. This last reading has been 
added by some ignorant copyist, for Barnabas and Saul were returning from Jerusalem to 
Antioch with the money which they had collected for the poor brethren. 

23. That reading which makes a passage more connected is preferable , 
all due allowance being made for abruptness in the particular case . Saint 
Paul is remarkable for the abruptness of many of his digressions . 

24. Readings , certainly genuine , ought to be restored to the text of the 
printed editions, though hitherto admitted into none of them; that they 
may henceforth be rendered as correct as possible they ought likewise to be 
adopted in all versions of Scripture: and till this be done , they ought to be 

followed in explaining it. 

25. Probable readings may have so high a degree of evidence, as justly 
entitles them to be inserted into the text, in place of the received readings 
which are much less probable. Such as have not considerably higher pro- 
bability than the common readings , should only be put into the margin : but 
they , and all others, ought to be weighed with impartiality. 

26. Readings certainly, or very probably false , ought to be expunged from 
the editions of the Scriptures , and ought not to be followed in versions of 
them, however long and generally, they have usurped a place there, as being 
manifest corruptions , which impair the purity of the sacred books. 

The preceding are the most material canons for determining various 
readings, which are recommended by the united wisdom of the most 
eminent biblical critics. They have been drawn up chiefly from 
Dr. Kennicott’s Dissertations on the Hebrew text, De Rossi’s Com- 
pendio di Critica Sacra, and the canons of the same learned author, 
“in his Prolegomena so often cited in the preceding pages, and from 
the canons of Bauer in his Critica Sacra, of Ernesti, of Pfaff, Pritius, 
Wetstein, Griesbach, Beck, Muntinghe, and, above all, of Miehaelis, 
with Bishop Marsh’s annotations, often more valuable than the ela- 
borate work of his author. 


[Parti. Ch. 




XT is obvious, even on the most cursory perusal of the Holy Scrip- 
tures, that some passages are cited in other subsequent passages ; and, 
in particular, that numerous quotations from the Old Testament are 
made in the New. In these references, there is frequently an ap- 
parent contradiction or difference between the original and the 
quotation ; of which, as in the contradictions alleged to exist in the 
Scriptures, (which are considered and solved in the second part of 
this volume,) infidelity and scepticism have sedulously availed them- 
selves. These seeming discrepancies, however, when brought to the 
touchstone of criticism, instantly disappear : and thus the entire har- 
mony of the Bible becomes fully evident. The appearance of con- 
tradiction, in the quotations from the Old Testament that are found 
in the New, is to be considered in two points of view, namely, 1. As 
to the external form , or the words in which the quotation is made ; 
and, 2. As to the internal form , or the manner or purpose to which 
it is applied by the sacred writers. 

A considerable difference of opinion exists among some learned 
men, whether the Evangelists and other writers of the New Testament 
quoted the Old Testament from the Hebrew, or from the venerable 
Greek version, usually called the Septuagint. Others, however, are 
of opinion, that they did not confine themselves exclusively to either ; 
and this appears most probable. The only way by which to deter- 
mine this important question, is to compare and arrange the texts 
actually quoted. Drusius, Junius, Glassius, Cappel, Hoffman, Eich- 
horn, Michaelis, and many other eminent biblical critics on the 
Continent, have ably illustrated this topic; in our own country, in- 
deed, it has been but little discussed. The only writers on this 
subject, known to the author, are the Rev. Dr. Randolph, formerly 
Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, the Rev. 
Dr. Henry Owen, and the Rev. Thomas Scott (the titles of whose 
publications will be found in pp. ] 45, 1 46. of the Appendix to this vo- 
lume) ; but they have treated it with so much ability and accuracy, 
that he has to acknowledge himself indebted to their labours for great 
part of his materials for the present chapter. 1 * 3 ° 

1 Besides the publications of the writers above mentioned, the author has constantly 
availed himself of the researches of Drusius (Parallela Sacra), in the 8th volume of the 

Critici Sacri ; — of Cap pel’s Critica Sacra, lib. ii. (in vol. i. pp. 136* — 172. of Prof Vo- 
gel’s edition);— of Glassius’s Philologia Sacra, partii. pp. 1387. et seq. fed Datirii] ■ 
and of Michaelis s Introduction to the New Testament, translated by Bishop Marsh 
(toJ.1. pp. 200 — 246.470—493.). Dr. Gerard’s Institutes of Biblical Criticism have 
also been occasionally referred to, as well as Schlegelius’s Dissertatio De Aero saneuinis 
et Fropbeha circa eutn allegata, in ihe Thesaurus Dissertationum Exegeticarum ad Nor 

Test, tom, ii, pp. 309 — 340. 

VI. Sect !.§!.] Tables of Quotations from the Old Testament , fyc. 205 





Isa. vii. 14. 

iSou 7} Trapdevos ev yaffrpt 
A7j iperai, Kai reg erai vlov , Kai 
KaXe<reis to ovopa avrov E/ 4 - 

Behold the virgin shall con- 
ceive and bear a son, and thou 
shalt call his name Emmanuel. 

Micah v. 2. 

Ecu crv 'BrjQXeep oikos pa- 
day oXiyocrros et tov eivat ev 
XiMcuriv lovda ; etc (Tov pot ege- 
XevaeTai, tov eivai eis apxovra 
tov I o-pcwjA. 

But, as for thee, Bethlehem, 
thou house of Ephratba, art 
thou the least [or, too little], 
to become one of the thousands 
of Judah ? Out of thee shall 
one come forth to me, to be 
the ruler of Israel. 

Matt i. 23 . 

iSow 7} TrapQ €vos ev yacrrpi 
Kai Tegerat vlov, kcu KaXe- 
crovcri to ovopa avrov E ppa~ 

Behold, a virgin shall be 
Tvith child, and shall bring 
forth a son; and they shall 
call his name Emmanuel. 

Matt. ii. 6. 

Kcti erv BriQXeep, 777 lovSa, 
ovoapais eXaxiorr7] ei ev rots 
riyepocriv lov5cr ev <Tov yap 
egeXevcrerai rfyovpevos, dims 
7roipavei rov Xaov pov tov 
lorpaTjX. 3 

And thou, Bethlehem in 
the land of Judah, art not the 
least among the princes of 
Judah : for out of thee shall 
come a governor that shall rule 
my people Israel. 

1. Isa. vii. 14. 
p mbn mrr nn:rrr n:n 
: mo 

Behold, a virgin shall con- 
ceive, and bear a son, and shall 
call his name Immanuel. 

2. Micah v. 2. 

orrr m nrwi 
^ ■po min* nvrrt 
towa too nvrrt 

But thou, Bethlehem E- 
phratah, though thou be little 
among the thousands of Ju- 
dah, yet out of thee shall he 
come forth unto me, that is to 
be ruler of Israel. 

3. Hos. xi. 1. 

* ’•3A 1 ? \"wnp tanaeoi 

I called my son out of 


Hos. xi. 1. 

E£ Aryirtrrov pereKaXeca ra 
reicva avrov . 

I called his children out of 

Matt, ii, 15. 

E£ A lywrov eKaXeca top 
vlov pov i. 

Out of Egypt have I called 
my son. 

1 In the first edition of this work, the author had simply given the references to these 
quotations. They are now inserted at length, in order to save the student’s lime, and also 
to enable him more readily to compare the Hebrew and Greek together; and the English ver- 
sion of the passages is annexed for the convenience of the mere English reader. The text of 
the Septuagint is that termed the Vatica7i ; and where there are any material variations in the 
Alexandrine text, they are briefly noticed. The English version of the Septuagint is given 
from Mr. Thomson’s Anglo-American translation (with the exception of two or three passages 
that have been altered to make them more literal), entitled “ The Holy Bible, containing 
the Old and New Covenant, commonly called the Old and New Testament, translated from 
the Greek. Philadelphia, ISOS.” In four volumes, 8 vo. 

2 This quotation agrees exactly neither with the Hebrew nor with the Septuagint. The 
only material difference is that the evangelist adds the negative avSapus* which is in neither of 
them. But the Syriac translation reads it with an interrogation, A r «m parva es ? Art thou 
little ? And so Archbishop Newcome has rendered it : 

And thou, Bethlehem Ephrata, 

Art thou too little to be among the leaders of Judah? 

Out of thee shall come forth unto me 
One who is to be a ruler in Israel. 

The question, he observes, implies the negative, which is inserted in Matt. ii. 6. and also in 
the Arabic version. Both the Hebrew and the Greek, as they now stand, are capable of be- 
ing pointed interrogatively. And it is worthy of remark, that the Codex Cantab rigiensis 
reads pri, not , interrogatively, instead of ovSapus, in which it is followed by the Old Italic 
version, and by Tertullian, Cyprian, and other Latin fathers. 


Tables of Quotations from [Part I. Ch. 

4. Jer. xxxi. 15. 
tr-vn^n ^ **rr2 zv&z rrtra Vip 
cn:r* rr:a"fcf rrass ‘rm 
: t»'k o 

A voice was heard in Ra- 
mah, lamentation, <mf/ hitter 
weeping; Rachel weeping for 
her children, refused to be 
comforted for her children, be- 
cause they were not. 

5. Psal. xxii. 6. lxix. 9, 10. 
Isa. Hi. liii. Zech. xi. 12, 

6. Isa, xl* 3-5. 
mu' yn m •viim »"iip *?ip 
nrrfj** ntoQ hum ‘iw 
* 80' ftraai nn-ta’i was* wrto 
ta'Mim m«*nb ripsrr mm 
*i«t? mm hm r*a:i trap*? 
: mn’ ’D '3 nm nwa*a 

The voice of him that crieth 
in the wilderness, Prepare ye 

Jer. xxxi. 15. 

$av7] tv ‘Papa tjkovgBt} &pri • 
you, Kat KXavdpov, kcu o8vp/xov‘ 
‘Paxnh CLiroKAaLOfievir) ovk r}8e\e 
it avcraadcu eiri rots vtois avT7]S f 

There was heard at Rama, 
a sound of lamentation, and 
weeping and wailing: Rachel, 
weeping for her children, re- 
fused to be comforted, because 
they are not. 

Isa. xl. 3-5. 

&WV1] gOWVTQS €V T7] ep^jUCO* 

*Etoi fiacarr e tt\v 68o v Kvpiou, 
cvBaas iroiarc ras r ptgavs rov 
©eou 7}(jtuv. IT a<ra (papa 7 | itXtj- 
pOJ07]CT€TCU, Kat 'C TUV OpOS Kttl 
Povvos raTT€ivaOt]ffeTar Kat ca- 
rat ravra ra GKaMa as svBaav, 
Kat i} a pax* & eis neSta. 3 Kat 
ocpdTjcrtrat 71 5o£a Kvpiov, Kai 
otpcrat Tracra crap£ r 0 Gccrrjpiov 
rov Qtov. 

A voice of one crying in the 
wilderness. Prepare the way 

Matt. ii. 1 8. 

$o)V 7) tv 'Papa tjkovgQt ] , Srpyj- 
vos Kai KkavdiJ.os, Kai oBvpfjtos 
TroKvSi 'Paxi^- Kkatovca ra 
rtKva avlyjs, kcu ovk y]8t\c 
7rapaK\7}67}pat, dn ovk curt. 1 

In Rama was there a voice 
heard, lamentation, and weep- 
ing, and great mourning, Ra- 
chel weeping fir her children, 
and would not be comforted, 
because they are not. 

Matt. ii. 23. 

*0t rax ir\7)p(t)&7] ro faBtv 81a 
rcov irpocpTjruv, 6rt Na^wpatos 
K\r}diqrrelai . 9 

That it might be fulfilled 
which was spoken by the pro- 
phets, He shall be called a 

Matt. iii. 3, Mark i. 3. 

Luke iii. 4-6. 

•Paw] P ouvros tv ryj epTjjuw 
'Eroiptairart r-qv odov Kvptov t 
ev&aas iroiare ras rpi§ovs 
avrov. Tiara cpapa y£ tt kTjpa- 
67) rerai, Kai wav opos teai Pov~ 
vos rairavcodriGtrai ■ /cat ecrrat 
ra o-fco\ia as tvBaav, Kai al 
Tpax^tat as oSovs \aas. Kat 
oiperai Tracra trap| ro acorrjpiov 
rov Qeov. 4 

The voice of one crying in 
the wilderness, Prepare ye the 

1 The quotation in Matthew agrees very nearly w ith the Hebrew, but not with the Septua- 
gint. Hr. Randolph thinks it might possibly be taken from some other translation. (On 
the Quotations, p, 27.) 

9 As the evangelist cites the Prophets in the plural number, it is highly probable that this 
passage is not a quotation from any particular prophet, but a citation denoting the humble 
and despised condition of the Messiah, as described by the prophets in genera], and especially 
by the prophet Isaiah. (See Hr. Hunt’s sermon on Matt ii. 23., at the end of his tf Ob- 
servations on several Passages in the Book of Proverbs,” pp. 1 70 — 1 93.) Though the words, 
he shrill he called a Jtfazarene, are not to be found in the writings of the prophets, yet as the 
2£ii/g intended !, y them is of frequent occurrence, the application is made with sufficient propriety. 
The Israelites despised the Galileans in general, but especially the Nazarenes ; who were so 
contemptible 3 s to be subjects of ridicule even to the Galileans themselves. Hence, iVasn- 
rene was a term of reproach proverbially given to any despicable worthless person whatever. 
Wherefore since the prophets (particularly those above referred to) have, in many parts of 
their writings, foretold that the Messiah should be rejected, despised, and traduced, they have 
in reahty predicted that he should be called a Nazarene. And the Evangelist justly reckons 
Christ s dwelling in Nazareth, among other things, a completion of these predictions ; because 
m the course of his public life, the circumstance of his having been educated in that town was 
frequently objected to him as a matter of scorn, and was one principal reason why his coun- 
trymen would not receive him. (John i. 46. and vii. 41. 52.) Dr. Macknight’s Harmony, 
TOK u p. 53. Svo edit. See also Rosenmuller, Kuinoel, and other commentators on this 

* A«as. (Alex.) 

^ * 7Xa q uotation *grees in sense, though not exactly, with the Hebrew, and also with the wbo3e of it occurs in Luke iii. 4-6. and the first part in Matt. iii. 3. and 

VI. Sect. I. § 1.] The Old Testament in the Net e. 


the way of the Lord ; make 
straight in the desert a high- 
way for our God. Every 
valley shall be exalted, and 
every mountain and hill shall 
be made low : and the crooked 
shall be made straight; and 
the rough places plain. And 
the glory of the Lord shall 
be revealed ; and all flesh shall 
see it together. 

L Dent. viii. 3. 

cnarr rptr ns 1 * * ? crnrrjr 

Mail doth not live by bread 
only, but by every word that 
proceedeth out of the mouth 
of the Lord doth man live. 

8. Psal. xci. 11, 12. 

•pasrt p-ms* vsvfoo *3 

parrjo d'»^ t “prr 

For he shall give his angels 
charge over thee, to keep thee 
in all thy ways. They shall 
bear thee up in their hands, 
lest thou dash thy foot against 
a stone. 

9. Deut. vi. 16. 

Di'nbH mrpTiH loan & 

Thou shalt not tempt the 
Lord thy God. 

10. Deut. vi. 13. 

w»i NTn ‘■proa mn’-ns 

Thou shalt fear the Lord 
thy God, and serve him. 

II, Isa. ix. 1 , 2 . 
pm rrrw bpn jraann run 
T33rr pnn«m rrsiKi 

Ds?n ; d'tan Wa pTn nm? ovr 
w D^brrrr 

; rwa tin nia^i fwa 

of the Lord ; make straight the 
roads for our God. Every 
valley shall be filled up; and 
every mountain and hill be 
levelled. And all the crooked 
places shall be made a straight 
road, and the rough way 
smooth plains. And the glory 
of the Lord will appear; and 
all flesh shall see the salvation 
of God. 

Deut. viii, 3. 

Ovk €7T 5 apro) fxovto ^tjatrat 
o ap&panros, aAV errt wavrt 
pripaTi Tea tKTroptvopLtPU Bia 
i TToixaTos &tov. 

Man shall not live by bread 
only, but by every word that 
proceedeth out of the mouth 
of God. 

Psai. xci. 11, 12. 

'On rots ayytKots avrou sp- 
reKtiTai irtpt arov, rov dtatpv- 
\a£ai ere tv ira. (T olls Tats otois 
aov E7n x eL pw etpoven at, per) 


TroSa <tov. 

For he will give his angels 
a charge concerning thee, to 
keep thee in all thy ways. 
With their hands they shall bear 
thee up, lest thou shouldest at 
any time strike thy foot against 
a stone. 

Deut. vi. 16. 

Ovk tiartipaatis K vpiop top 
® tov aov. 

Thou shall not tempt the 
Lord thy God. 

Deut. vi, 13. 

KvptOP TOP ®tOP (TOV <pQ§n- 
a&7)a7), Kat avra ptoveo Aarpgv- 

Thou shalt fear the Lord 
thy God, and serve liim alone. 

Isa. ix. 1, 2. 

Xeapa ZajSovXcop 7) 7 V Ne- 
<£$aA tifx, Kat oi Kot-wot at ttjp 
irapaXtav Kai ratpav tov Iop- 
Bapov TaKiKata r tap e$pcsp. ‘O 
Aa os 6 Tjopevofievos tv VKorei, 
tBt T6 (peas pteya‘ oi KaroiKOwrts 
tv %«ypa tTKta Zavarov, (pais 
Kapopti e<p> iiptcts. 

wav of the Lord, make his 
paths straight. Every valley 
shall be filled, and every moun- 
tain and hill shall be brought 
low ; and the crooked shall be 
made straight, and the rough 
ways shall be made smooth ; 
and all flesh shall see the sal- 
vation of God. 

Matt. iv. 4. Luke Iv* 4. 

Ovk €7t apru ptovea fatrerat 
apftpooiros, «AA’ ear t TJaurt fa* 
fiaTi €K7ropevojLtepca dtaaroptaros 

Man shall not live by bread 
alone, but by every word that 
proceedeth out of the mouth 
of God. 

Matt. iv. 6. 

'Oti ..... rots ayytKots av- 
tqv tPTeXttTat ir epi aov, Kat 
ext x* l P av apovai ore, perjiroTt 
irpocKoipT} s 7rpos A i6ap top noSa 

For ...... he shall give his 

angels charge concerning thee ; 
and in their hands they shall 
bear thee up, least at any 
time thou dash thy foot against 
a stone. 

Matt. Iv* 7. 

Ovk tfcvtipaertis Kvptop rov 
®tov aov. 

Thou shalt not tempt the 
Lord thy God. 

Matt. iv. 10. 

Kvptop top Stop aov Tapoa- 
Kvprjatts, Kat avrea ptovu Aft- 

Thou shalt worship the Lord 
thy God, and him only shalt 
thou serve. 

Matt. iv. 15, 16. 

Tt} Z a&av\(av, Kat yq Ne- 
(p&aXtipt, bBop &aXaaaT$s 3 repay 
tov IopSapov, FaXtXaia rtar 
tSvcav. 'O Kaos 6 tcaSyptepas tv 
GKorti tiBe (peas fieya, Kat rats 
KaGypevots tv X w P a KaL ffKLa 
fravaTov tpws aPtTtihtp «eu- 
rots . 1 

1 These words are not an exact translation of the Hebrew ; and Dr. Randolph observes 

that it is difficult to make sense of the Hebrew or of the English in the order in which the 

words at present stand. But the difficulty, he thinks, may easily be obviated, by removing 


Tables of flotations from [Part I. Ch. 

At the first he lightly af- 
flicted the land of Zebulun, 
and the land of Naphtali, and 
afterwards did more griev- 
ously afflict her by the way of 
the sea, beyond Jordan, in. 
Galilee of the nations. The 
people that walked in dark- 
ness have seen a great light ; 
they that dwell in the land of 
the shadow of death, upon 
them hath the light shined. 

12. Isa. liii, 4. 

waiesi Nfc: airr ir:rr pa 


Our infirmities he hath 
borne: And our sorrows he 
hath carried them. (Bp.Lowth.) 

13. Hos. vi. 6, 

raraVi 'risen nan '3 

I desired mercy and not 

14. Mai. iii, 1. 

'zzb ‘■prrcE'i '3 «:q '::n 

Behold I will send my mes- 
senger and he shall prepare the 
way before me. 

With regard to the region 
of Zabulon, the land of Neph- 
thalim, and the rest who in- 
habit the sea shore, and be- 
yond Jordan, Galilee of the 
nations ; ye people who walk 
in darkness, behold a great 
light ! and ye who dwell in a 
region, the shade of death, on 
you a light shall shine. 

Isa, liii. 4. 

Ofiros ras apaprtas yp&v 
(pepei, Kat wept Tjpcov oBvvarai. 

This man beareth away our 
sins, and for us he is in sor- 

Hos. vi. 6. 

"EAeos freAw 7] frv<nav. 

I desire mercy rather than 

Mai. iii. 1. 

ISoo c£a?roerT€AA<y rov ay - 
7eAov poo, Kai evtiAttyerat 
6Sov irpo irpOGonrov poo. 

Behold T send forth my 
messenger, and he will ex- 
amine the way before me. 

The land of Zabulon, and 
the land of Nephthalim » by the 
way of the sea, beyond Jordan, 
Galilee of the Gentiles ; the 
people which sat in darkness 
saw great light : and to them 
which sat in the region and 
shadow of death, light is 
sprung up. 

Matt. viii. 17. 

Avros ras acr&eveias fjfjLow 
eAaSe, Kai ras vocrovs e£a<r- 

Himself took our infirmi- 
ties, and bare our sicknesses. 

Matt. ix. 13. xii. 7. 

EA eov 3-eAct), /ecu 00 &v<nav, 

I will have mercy, and not 

Matt. xi. 10. Mark i. 2. 

Luke vii. 27. 

IS 00 , eyto cnrocrreAAcy rov 
ayyeAov poo irpo irpoffcoirov <rov 
6s KaracncevuGei rijv 6Bov troo 
epirpordev coo. 1 

Behold I send my messen- 
ger before thy face, which 
shall prepare thy way before 

15. Isa. xlii. 1-4. 
rrnsn n’m la-prw nzr p 
D'W vtvo i'?3? wi 'nna *ec: 
•Vfrl VW* P 3 S' vh SM'SV 

lr^? r?3p 1 fim #'DW* 

vb nro nrvoci tq«p 
irmnVi :mra ww navh 
’ ; 1 to" 

Isa. xlii. 1—4. 

IttKtoS 6 wats poo, aor:A7j^o- 
pa: avrov' IoparjA 6 skAsktos 
poo * 'orpo<reSe|aTo avrov 7) 'pvxn 
poo* eSeo/ca to nruevpa poo eY 
avrov, Kpuriv rots e&vecriv e|- 
ozffei, Oo /ee/eped-erat, ovSe 
avTjtrez, oo5e aKOva^Tjaerai e£« 
71 tfjuvT] atrrov. KaAapov r e- 
$A atrpevov 00 cuvrpvpei, Kai 
Atvov KaTTVigopevov ov <rf$€<r€t, 
aAAa its aATj&iuxv e^otcret Kpuriv 
— Kai ewi tw ovopari avrov 
€&VT} eAXiOOffiV. 

Matt. xii. IS— 21. 

I 5 oo, 6 irats poo, bv ^perira* 
6 ayamiros poo, eis bv 6080/07- 
crev i} ipvx 7 ! A 00 ' to irvev- 
pa poo 67 r’ avrov, Kai Kptfftv 
rots eBvecriv airayyiAst. O ok 
eptcrei, oo 5 e Kpavyarei, ovBe 
a Kovrei ns ev rats irAareiais 
rriv <p<av t\v avrov, KaAapov 
ffvvrerptpfievov ov Karea^et, Kat 
Atvov rvcpopevov ov agecrer 4 tos 


Kat ev no ovopart avrov e&vri 
eAinoutn, 2 

the first sis words of Isa. ix. and joining them to the former chapter, as they are in all the old 
versions : And then the words may be thus rendered : As the former time made vile, or debased , 
the land of Zabulon, and the land if Kephtali, so the latter time shall make it ghrious. The way 
of the sea, $c. A prophecy most signally fulfilled by our Saviour’s appearance and residence 
in these parts. The evangelist, from the first part of the sentence, takes only the land of Za- 
bulon, and the land ofXephthalim. What follows is an exact, and almost literal translation of 
the Hebrew : only for trr^nrr, walked, is put Kakrnpevos, sat . How properly this prophecy is 
cited, and applied to our Saviour, see Mr. Mede’s Disc, on Mark i. 14, 15. Mr. Lowtb’s 
Comment on Isa. 9. and Bishop Lowth’s translation, (Randolph on the Quotations, p. 28.) 

* This quotation differs from the Hebrew and all the old versions in these two particulars : 
riae words •arpo ‘wpocanrov rov are added, and what is in Hebrew '2D7, btfore me, is rendered 
opMpoeSr&t am, before thee. For the reason of this difference it is not easy to account, but by 
supposing some corruptions crept into the antient copies ; the sense is much the same. (Dr. 
BjMsdo^h on the Quotations, p. 28.) 

® Tins quotation by no means agrees with the Septuagint version, whose authors have ob- 

VI. Sect. I. § 1.] The Old Testament in the 


Behold my servant whom I 
uphold, mine elect in whom 
my soul delighteth : I have 
put my spirit upon him, he 
shall bring forth judgment 
to the Gentiles. He shall not 
cry, nor lift up, nor cause his 
voice to be heard in the street. 
A bruised reed shall he not 
break : and the smoking flax 
shall he not quench : he shall 
bring forth judgment unto 
truth. He shall not fail nor be 
discouraged, till he have set 
judgment in the earth :< and 
the isles shall wait for his law. 

16, Isa. vi. 9, 10. 

inti sooiu isos? 

cpm 1 ? pen nnn-^1 
-p sirn vrsn nisn v:wi mn 
*mVi sot?* lwa rm*r 
t ft 

Hear ye indeed, but under- 
stand not : And see ye indeed, 
but perceive not. Make the 
heart of this people fat, and 
make their eyes heavy, and 
shut their eyes ; lest they see 
with their eyes, and hear with 
their ears, and understand 
with their heart, and convert, 
and be healed. 

1 7. Psal. Ixxviii. 2. 

nmn Vota nnn$ 3 « 

*, tnp'^a 

Jacob is my servant, I will 
uphold him ; Israel is my 
chosen one, my soul hath em- 
braced him . I have put my 
spirit upon him ; he will pub- 
lish judgment to the nations: 
he will not cry aloud, nor 
urge with vehemence, nor will 
his voice be heard abroad. A 
bruised reed be will not break, 
nor will he quench smoking 
flax, but will bring forth judg- 
ment unto truth, — and in his 
name shall the nations trust 
(or hope). 

Isa. vi. 9-11. 

Akot) oKova-ere , kcu ov pr} 
avyjjre, Kai ftKeTToyres fiAeiperc, 
KCU ov fiTj idrjTe. EwaxwQT} 
yap 7) Kapdia rov \a ov tootow, 
kcu tois coaiv avruv jB apeics 
TlKovaav, /cat r ovs o<p6a\povs 
eKappvaair, prjirore idooat tois 
oc pOaApois, Kai rots oxriv a/eau- 
o-aerij kcu tt) Kapdi a (Twain, Kai 
eTrtaTpetpvo’L, Kai laaopai av- 


By hearing, ye shall hear, 
though ye may not under- 
stand j and seeing, ye shall 
see, though ye may not per- 
ceive. For the heart of this 
people is stupefied, and their 
ears are dull of hearing ; and 
they have shut their eyes, that 
for a while they may not see 
with their eyes, and hear with 
their ears, and understand with 
their hearts, and return that 
I may heal them. 

Psal. Ixxviii. 2. 

Avot^co ev irapa§o\ais to <tto- 
pa pov, <p6eyi-opat '&pQ§\7ipa- 
ra air’ apxns. 

Behold my servant whom 
I have chosen, my beloved in 
whom my soul is well pleased. 
I will put my spirit upon him, 
and he shall show judgment 
to the Gentiles. He shall 
not strive nor cry; neither 
shall any man hear his voice 
in the streets. A bruised reed 
shall he not break, and smok- 
ing flax shall he not quench, 
till he send forth judgment 
unto victory. And in his 
name shall the Gentiles trust. 

Matt, xiii. 14, 15. Acts 
xxviii, 26, 27. Mark iv. 1 2, 
Luke viii. lO, 

A hot] aKovtrere, Kai ov p7j 
(Twrire- Kai fiKeirovres f}h€$eTe f 
Kai ov pyj iSyfrc. Eiraxw&T} 
yap y Kapdia rov Aaou rovrov, 
Kai Tots axn flapews yjKovaav, Kai 
tovs oipdahpovs avTocv cKappv- 
i rap, pTpxoTz tdaicri tois otpQa\- 
pois, Kat rots oktlp OKovcraxri , 
KatTTj Kapdia avvaxri, Kai eir:~ 
o'Tp&pooo’i) Kai laaaipai avrovs. 1 

By hearing ye shall hear, 
and shall not understand : and 
seeing ye shall see, and shall 
not perceive : for this people's 
heart is waxed gross, and their 
ears are dull of hearing, and 
their eyes they have closed ; 
lest at any- time tliey should 
see with their eyes, and hear 
with their ears, and should 
understand with their heart, 
and should be converted, and 
I should heal them. 

Matt. xiii. 35. 

A mifya ey TrapaSoXais to 
eropa pov, epevgopcu Kwpvp- 
p*pa cm to KaTaSohTjs Kocrpov. 

scored this prophecy by adding the words Jacob and Israel , which are not in the original He- 
brew. It is probably taken from some old translation agreeing very nearly with the Hebrew* 
The only difficulty is in the words ec os w/ eKSahTj eis pikos t ip xpurip . But if by eetSo we 
understand the cause under trial , then to send forth his cause unto truth , will be to carry the 
cause, and vindicate its truth ; whtdh agrees in sense with ejefoAij eis vitcos rqv Kpmv. (Dr. 
Randolph on the Quotations, p. 28.) 

1 This quotation is taken almost verbatim from the Septuagint. In the Hebrew the sense 
is obscured by false pointing. If, instead* of reading it In the imperative mood, we read it in 
the indicative mood, the sense w ill be : ye shall hear bid not understand : and ye shall see but 
not perceive. This people hath made their heart fat, and hath made their ears heavy and shut 
their eyes , &c. which agrees in sense with the Evangelist and with the Septuagint, as well as 
with the Syriac and Arabic Versions, but not with the Latin Vulgate. We have the same 
quotation, word for word, in Acts xxviii. 26. Mark and Luke refer to the same prophecy, 
but quote it only in part. (Dr, Randolph, p. 29.) 



I will open my mouth in a 
parable; I will utter dark 
sayings of old. 

IS. Isa. xxix. 13. 
vnfitai vca mrr crrr ©22 '2 
’rrm pm ii’/'i '2m2 

C'c:n ni2?Q 'n» nnwi* 
: mote 

This people draw near me 
with their mouth, and with 
their lips do honour me, but 
have removed their heart far 
from me: and their fear to- 
wards me is taught by the 
precept of men, 

19. Gen. ii. 24. 

-riw v:»rn» tt'K-aw* p'te 
nn» vm in««a pm iok 

Therefore shall a man leave 
his father and his mother, and 
shall cleave unto his wife, and 
they shall be one flesh. 

20. Exod. xx. 12-16. 

N 1 ? “pMTWl •ptrriN 122 

reyn n::n x) pjm:m w nsin 

{ Ipt? IS* "[212 

Honour thy father and thy 
mother. Thou shalt not kill. 
Thou shalt not commit adul- 
tery. Thou shalt not steal. 
Thou shalt not bear false wit- 
ness against thy neighbour. 

21, Lev. xix. 18. 

T»Q2 "pi 1 ? nantn 

Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
bour as thyself. 

22. Zecfa. ix. 9, (and see 

Isa. lxii. II.) 

-ra 'rirr jvs-m imq 'vi 
pns y ‘pta n:n arorv 

Tables of Quotations from [Part I. Ch. 

I will open my mouth in 
parables; I will utter dark 
sayings of old. 

Isa. xxix. 13. 

Eyyiget poi 6 \aos otiros ev 
ru orojiart avrov, /ecu ev rots 
X^Xertv avruv rtfiaxri pe, % Se 
KapSta avruv rtroppu airexei 
air* 6 pov fiarriv Se aeSovrat 
fie, StSacTKovres evraXpara av- 
6 punuv Kat StScuricaXias. 

This people draw near to 
me with their mouth ; and 
with their lips they honour 
me, but their heart is far from 
me ; And in vain do they 
worship me, teaching the com- 
mands and doctrines of men. 

Gen. ii. 24. 

'EveKev rovrov KaraXetif/et 
av&punos rov 'txrarepa avrov 
Kat tt)v jiTjTepd, Kat 'Wpocncoh- 
XTidTjaerat -vrpos ryjv yvvatKa 
avrov Kat ecromai ot Svo ets 
trapKa fitav* 

Therefore a man shall leave 
his father and mother, and 
shall cleave to his wife ; and 
they two shall be one flesh. 

Exod. xx. 12-16. 

T ifia rov warepa rov, Kat ryv 
fiffrepa rov — O v poix^vrets- Ov 
KXeij/ets m O v <povevrets‘ Ou 

Honour thy father and thy 

mother Thou shalt notcom- 

mit adultery. — Thou shalt 
not steal. — Thou shalt not 
commit murder. — Thou shalt 
not bear false witness. 

Lev. xix. 18. 

Kat ayamjreis rov wXyriov 
rov us reavrov. 

And thou shalt love thy 
neighbour, as thyself. 

Zech. ix. 9. 

Xcupe rtpoSpa , frvyarep ^teov ; 
KTjpvrre, \ hvyarep 'lepovrakup* 

I will open my mouth m 
parables ; I will utter things 
which have been kept secret 
from the foundation of the 

Matt. xv. 8, 9. 

TLyytgei fiot 6 Kaos ovros ru 
rr opart avruv , Kat rots xe(Aetr£ 
fie rifia * rj Se icaptita avruv 
rroppu aTT€X ei a7l? *po v ‘ parrjv 
5e reSovrat pe, dtSaJKovres 
StSarxaXtas, evraXpara av- 
QpuTcav. 1 

This people draweth nigh 
unto me with their mouth and 
honoureth me with their lips : 
but their heart is far from me. 
But in vain do they worship 
me, teaching^?* doctrines the 
commandments of men. 

Matt. xix. 5. 

'EveKev rovrov Kara Xetif/ei 
avdpcoTTos rov marepa Kat rr\v 
pryrepa, Kat wporKoXXrjdTjrerat 
T7j yvvatKL av rov Kat erovraL 
ot Si io ets trapKa ptav.~ 

For this cause shall a man 
leave father and mother, and 
shall cleave to his wife ; and 
they twain shall be one flesh. 

Matt. xix. 18, 19. 

Ou tpovevreis. Ov poix^vrets* 
Ov KXexf/ets’ Oa \pev8opaprvp7i- 
rets* Ttfia rov rrarepa <rov 
Kat ttjv firjrepa. 

Thou shalt do no murder : 
thou shalt not commit adul- 
tery : thou shalt not steal : 
thou shalt not bear false wit- 
ness: honour thy father and 
thy mother. 

Matt. xix. 1 9. xxii. S9. 

AyaTnjcreis rov wXrjo-tov rov 
tbs reavrov. 

Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
bour, as thyself. 

Matt. xxi. 5. 

Ewrare rrj frvyarpt ^iuv 
1 5ov, 6 BartXevs <tov epx&rat 

1 The quotation in this passage of St. Matthew’s Gospel approaches nearer to the Septua- 
glnt than to the Hebrew text, especially in the clause parriv Se reSovrat fie — in vain do they 
worship me ; which is found in the Septuagint, but not in the Hebrew, and is retained by the 
Bv&pgeiist. The verbal differences, however, show that an exact quotation, was not intended. 

* This quotation agrees with the Hebrew', excepting that the word for two is there omitted. 
But it ought to be inserted in the Hebrew text, as we have already seen in p. 188. supra. 


VI. Sect. I. § 1.] The Old Testament in the New. 

Tiorrte aam airr swin 
: m:n»-p n'r-fcn 

Rejoice greatly, O daughter 
of Zion ; shout, O daughter 
of Jerusalem; behold, thy 
king cometh unto thee. He 
is just and having salvation, 
lowly, and riding upon an ass 
even upon a colt the foal of 
an ass. 

23. Psal. viii. 3. (2. of Eng- 

lish version.) 

w me' t^Vr# 

Out of the mouths of babes 
and sucklings thou hast or- 
dained strength. 

24. Psal. cxviii. 22, 23. 

wh- 6 nrvn tpamn toas pn 
wnr n«t nrvn nw n : n:a 
nvrra nwtea 

The stone which the build- 
ers refused, is become the head 
stone of the corner. This is 
the Lord’s doing, and it is 
marvellous in our eyes. 

25. Exod. iii. 6. 

dttuh -pi** 'nh* 

ipj?’ 'nbwi prrsn 

I am the God of thy father, 
the God of Abraham, the God 
of Isaac, and the God of 

26. Dcut. vi. 5. 

TnV« mrp n» mn«i 
: ppfcvr'nrt “[‘ccrba'i 

i5ov, <5 BacrtAeus ffov cpx^rat 
croi 5 iKcuos Kat ffafoy avros 
•wpaus, Kat eTi§G§tjfcas € 7 n 
imo^vyiov Kat wcokop peov. 

Rejoice exceedingly, O 
daughter of Sion; make pro- 
clamation, O daughter of Je- 
rusalem. Behold, thy king 
is coming to thee ; he is righ- 
teous, and having salvation. 
He is meek, and mounted on 
an ass, even a young colt. 

Psal. viii. 2. 

E/c (rrofiaros pyntuiv Kat 
frr)\a£ovra)j/ KaT 7 }pri<T(c aivov. 

Out of the mouth of babes 
and sucklings thou hast per- 
fected praise. 

Psal. cxviii. 22, 23. 

A lQov op avtboKipacrap oi 
oiKobopowres, ovros eyeppr}6r] 
eis K6(pc i\7]P yuvtas- rsrapa. Kv- 
piov eyepero aurrj, icai cart 
SavpaarT} cp ocpOakpoLs hpoov. 

The stone, which the build- 
ers rejected, the same is be- 
come the head of the corner. 
This was from the Lord (or, 
the Lord’s doing) ; and it is 
wonderful in our eyes. 

Exod. iii. 6. 

Eya> etpt 6 Qeos tov trarpos 
aov, ©eos- A&paap, Kat 0eoy 
laaaK, Kat ©eos 1okco§. 

I am the God of thy father, 
the God of Abraham, and the 
God of Isaac, and the God of 

Deut. vi. 5. 

Ayamjacts K vptov top Qeoy 
(Tou *£ oMjs T7js diapotas crov , 
kcu bK'qs tt/s ipvxys crov, Kat 
e| 6X7)5 rrjs 5 vvapews <rov. 

ffot •arpuvs, Kat evtieSriKus cttl 
opop , koj, txrccAop vtop inro£v- 
ytov . 1 

Tell yc the daughter of 
Sion, Behold thy king cometh 
unto thee, meek and sitting 
upon an ass, and ( more cor- 
rectly, even) a colt the foal of 
an ass. 

Matt. xxi. 16. 

E k aroparos prpamv am 
hr\ka^ovrt£tv Karrjpricrco atvov. 

Out of the mouth of babes 
and sucklings thou hast per- 
fected praise. 

Matt. xxi. 42. Mark xii. 10. 

Luke xx. 17. Acts iv. 11. 

A tBov av aneZoKipacraP oi 
oiKobopowTss, oirros yevwqSrq 
eis Ke<pa\7}v y capias' wapa Iiu- 
ptOV €y€PST0 ctvTTj, teat €(rrL 
fravpaarr} ev ocpSraXpots ypuap. 

The stone which the build- 
ers rejected, the same is be- 
come the head of the comer ; 
this is the Lord’s doing, and 
it is marvellous in our eyes. 

Matt. xxii. 32. Mark xii. 26. 

Luke xx. 37. 

Eytv etpt d &€0$ ASpaap, kcu 
6 ©cos Icraax, Kat d 0eos laKug. 

I am the God of Abraham, 
and the God of Isaac, and the 
God of Jacob. 

Matt. xxii. 37. Mark xii. 30. 
Luke x. 27. 

A yairi)(T€is Kvptop top ©cop 
crov 6X7} TTj Kapfita crov, Kat ep 
6X7} T7j tyvxn crov, kcu w oXtj 
ttj 5 tap oia crov,- 

1 This quotation seems to be taken from two prophecies, viz. Isa. Ixii. II. where we read 
Say ye to the daughter of Zion, behold thy salvation cometh - — and from Zech. ix. 9. The latter 
part agrees more exactly with the Hebrew than with the Septuagint; only both Saint Mat- 
thew and the Septuagint seem to have read 135?, meek, instead of '3$, afflicted . (Br. Randolph 
on the Quotations, p. 29.) 

e The Vatican edition of the Septuagint here translates p37, by -njr btavoias crov [thy un- 
derstanding ), But the Alexandrian edition renders it ttjs KttpStas trov [thy heart). St. Mat- 
thew takes in both, but puts tyvxn ( soul ) between ; he also puts ev 6 X 7 } for uXtjs agreeably to 
the Hebrew ; and he leaves out the latter clause, with all thy strength . St. Mark and St. Luke 
agree entirely with St. Matthew, only they add the latter clause. (Dr. Randolph.) The va- 
riation from the Septuagint and Hebrew does not in the least affect the meaning. Mr Scott 
thinks, with great probability, that the Evangelists, under the teaching of the Holy Spirit, 
gave the meaning of this first and great commandment in the most emphatical language, with- 
out intending either implicitly to quote the Septuagint, or literally to translate the Hebrew. 

2i 2 Tables of Quotations from 

Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with all thine heart, 
and with all thy soul, and with 
all thy might. 

Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with thy whole un- 
derstanding, and with thy 
whole soul, and with thy 
whole might. 

g7. Psal. cx. 1. 

'2*0^ 2S? mil' t3«2 

-i mn rvea 

The Lord said unto my 
Lord, Sit thou at my right 
hand, until I make thine ene- 
mies thy footstool. 

Psal. cx. 1. 

E lire? 6 Kopies rca Kvpico pov, 
Kadov €K Sel-iwv fioU) ecus av Seo 
r ovs e^Spovs 0 ov irtroito^iov 
rcav 'arotuv <rou. 

The Lord said unto my 
Lord, Sit at my right hand, 
until I make thine enemies 
thy footstool. 

[Part I- Ch. 

Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with all thy heart, 
and with all thy soul, and 
with all thy mind. 

Matt. xxii. 44. Mark xii. 36. 

Luke xx. 42. 

Enrev <5 Kopios tw Kvpico pov 9 
Kadov sk 5e£iuv pov , ecus av 
tovs exdpovs £ rov vttotoSlov 
rcov irottcov crov. 

The Lord said unto my 
Lord, Sit thou on my right 
hand, until I make thine ene- 
mies thy footstool. 

Matt. xxvi. 31. 

Uara^u rov 'sroijuevo, kcll 5iet- 
(TKOpTrt067ja‘€rou ra irpoSara rys 


I will smite the shepherd, 
and the sheep of the flock 
shall be scattered abroad. 

Matt, xxvii. 9, 10. 

Kcu eXaSov ra rpiatcovra 
apyvpia, ri\v npr\v rov rsrtpri- 
pevou, 6v eTt(jL7]<TOLVTO airo view 
Icrpa7]\. Kat edwKctv aura ets 
rov o ypov rov Kepapetos, icaO* 
<Tvvera%€ pot Kvpios. * 

£8. Zech. xiii. 7. 

prerr rcnrrrw "jn 

Smite the shepherd, and the 
sheep shall be scattered. 

29, Zech. xi. 13. 
np*rr via wrrto* iro’btirr 
D’ttVw nnpw crptee *mp' •veh 
-to r nrr to ina "ptem rpn 
* “isvr? 

Zech. xiii. 7. 

Uara^ov rov •arotpeva, Kat 
BtatTKopTncrdTjcrovraira 7 rpo€ara 
T 7 js uerotpvys . 1 

Smite the shepherd, and the 
sheep of the flock shall be 
scattered abroad. 

Zech. xi. 13. 

Kafres avrovs ets ro x uvev - 
rrjpiov, Kat <nc€tyopat ei SoKtpov 
€(TTiv t Sv rpoirov c^oKiparQrjv 
inrep avrcov Kat eXaiov rovs 
rptuKovra apyvpovs Kat eveSa- 
Xov a.irrovs €ts rov oikov Kvptovj 
eis ro x^evrijpiov. 

t This is the reading of the Alexandrine MS. of the Septuagint, excepting that the evan- 
gelist reads nara^a, I will smite , instead of irara£ov. The Arabic version agrees with Saint 
Matthew; and Drs. Randolph and Owen both think it probable that the Hebrew ought to be 
read "|« instead of “]n, for it follows in the first person, J will turn mine kand , &c. See Hou- 
bigantin loc. Kennicott’s Dissertatio Generalis, §'44. Randolph on the Quotations, p. 30. 
Owen on the Modes of Quotation, p. 54. 

- This citation is attended with no small difficulty. The prophecy is cited from Jeremiah : 
but in that prophet no such prophecy is to be found. In Zech. xi. 13. such a prophecy is 
found, but neither do the words there perfectly agree with Saint Matthew's citation. Some 
critics are of opinion that an error has crept into Saint Matthew’s copy ; and that lep has been 
written by the transcribers instead of Zex- or that the word has been interpolated. And it is 
to be observed, that the word is omitted in the MSS. by Griesbach numbered 33 (of the eleventh 
or twelfth century), and 157 (of the twelfth century), in the later Syriac and in the modern 
Greek versions, one or two MSS, of the old Italic version, some manuscripts cited by 
Augustine, and one Latin MS. cited by Lucas Bmgensis. Griesbach’s MS. 22. (of the 
eleventh century) reads Zaxaptov , which word is also found in the margin of the later Syriac 
version, and in an Arabic exemplar cited by Bengel in his Critical Edition of the New Tes- 
tament. Origen, and after him Eusebius, conjectured that this was the true reading. Other 
eminent critics have thought that the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters of what is called 
Zechariah's Prophecy were really written by Jeremiah, and they have certainly assigned very 
probable reasons for such opinion both from the matter and style. (See Dr. Hammond on 
Heb. viii. 9- Mede's Works, pp, 786-833. Bp. Kidder's Demonst. of Messiah, part ii. 
p* 196. &c. Lowth, Prrelect. Poet. Lect, xxi. See also Vol. IV. Part. I. Chap. VII, Sect. 
II* § IUj where reasons are assigned to show that these chapters were actually written by 
Zechariah. ) It is, however, most likely w that the original reading of Matthew xxvii. 9. was 
simply,/foif ph£ch swag spofieti by the prophet, Sta rov Trpotprjrov, without naming any prophet : 
And dus conjecture is confirmed by the fact that Saint Matthew often omits the name of the 
prophet in his quotations. (See Matt. i. 22. ii. 5. xiii. 35. and xxi. 4. ) Bengel approves of 
the omission. It was, as we have already shown (see pp. 1 61, 1 62. of tliis volume), the custom 
$ to, divide the Old Testament into three parts : the Jirst s beginning with the Law, 
was c&fad jins Law; the second, commencing with the Psalms, was called the Psalms ; and 
the third,* beginning with the prophet us question, was called Jeremiah ; consequently, the 

VI. Sect. I. § 1.] The Old Testament in the New, 

Cast it unto the potter; a 
goodly price that I was prized 
at of them. And I took the 
thirty pieces of silver, and cast 
them to the potter m the house 
of the Loan. 

30. Psal. xxii. 39. (18. of 

English version.) 

'tnn? ‘ysn Dm hji 'sp’srp 

They part my garments 
among them, and cast lots 
upon my vesture. 

31. Psal. xxii. 2. (1. of 
English version.) 

’3 rats 'bn 

My God, my God, why hast 
thou forsaken me ? 

32. Isa. liii. 12. 


And he was numbered with 
the transgressors. 

33. Exod. xiii. 2. 

DrrvbD T£D TDi-to 'b snp 

Whatsoever openeth the 
womb — both of man and of 
beast, it is mine. 


Put them into the smelting 
furnace, and I will see whe- 
ther it is proof, in like manner 
as I have been proved by them. 
So I took the thirty pieces of 
silver, and threw them down 
in the house of the Lord, for 
the smelting furnace. 

Psal. xxi. 18. (xxii. 18. of 
English Bible.) 

Atspepuravro ra Iparia pov 
eavrots, Kai eiri rov l par ur pov 
pov e€a\ov kA ypav. 

They have parted my gar- 
ments among them, and for 
my vesture have cast lots. 

Psal. xxii. 1. 

*0 &€0S, 6 ©60S fJLOV, XpO- 

<r%es fioL, Ivan eyKarcXivts 


O God, my God, attend 
to me ! Why hast thou for- 
saken me ? 

Isa. liii. 12. 

Kai ev t ols avopois eXoytadrj. 

And he was numbered 
among the transgressors. 

Exod. xiii. 2. 

'ASlcutqv pot wav xpccroroKov 
rrpwroyeves, Siavoiyov xatrav 

Consecrate to me every first 
born, that openeth every 

And they took the thirty 
pieces of silver, the price of 
him that was valued, whom 
they of the children of Israel 
did value : and gave them for 
the potter's field, as the Lord 
appointed me. 

Matt, xxvii. 35. John xix. 24* 

Atep cpuravro ra iparia pov 
eavrots, Kai ext rov taancpov 

pOV 6§oA OV K\T}pOV. 

They parted my garments 
among them, and upon my 
vesture did they cast lots. 

Matt, xxvii. 46. 

HAi, HAi, A apa aa€ax^avi ; 
TOUT* €<m, ©66 pov, 066 pOV, 
Ivan pe syKareXiirzs ; 1 

Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani ? 
That is to say, My God, my 
God, why hast thou forsaken 
me ? 

Mark xv. 28. Luke xxii. 37. 
Kai pera avopiov eA oyurdTj. 
And he was numbered with 
the transgressors. 

Luke ii. 23. 

Uav apaev dtamtyov prjrptxv 
ayiov ra Kvpitti KXi^rrprerai. 

Every male that openeth 
the womb shall be called holy 
to the Lord. 

writings of Zechariah, and of the other prophets, being included in that division which began 
with Jeremiah , all quotations from it would go under this prophet’s name. This solution 
completely removes the difficulty. Dr. Lightfoot (who cites the Baba Bathra and Rabbi 
David Kimchi’s Preface to the prophet Jeremiah as his authorities) insists that the word Je- 
remiah is perfectly correct, as standing at the head of that division from which the evangelist 
quoted, and which gave its denomination to all the rest. — With regard to the prophecy itself, 
if in Saint Matthew’s Gospel, for eliuKav, they gave, we read eSwica, I gave, which is the read- 
ing of the Evangelisteria, 24 and SI, of Griesbach’s notation (both of the eleventh century) 
and of both the Syriac versions, the evangelist’s quotation will very nearly agree with the ori- 
ginal. That we should read eSw/ttt, I gave, appears further to be probable from what follows,~* 
KaSra (Twera^e pot Kvpios, as the Lord commanded me, — Kai eA a£ov ra rpiajcovra apyvpta, kai 
eSco/ca avra as rov aypov rov Ktpapsas' and I took the thirty pieces of silver , and I gave them for 
the potter s field. The translation is literal, excepting only that "lYYVT is rendered aypov rov 
Kepapeas and mm h'l is omitted ; and the same is also omitted in some antient MSS. (See 
Kennicott’s Dissertatio Generalis, § 49. p. 21.) The words ryjv npqv rov renpyp&av hv 
enpyprcarro awo view IcrpariX and Ka&a auvera^e pot Kvpios are added to supply the sense, being 
taken in sense, and very nearly in words, from the former part of the verse ; this latter clause 
is in the Arabic version. Dr. Randolph on the Quotations, p. SO. Novum Testamentum, a 
Griesbach, tom. i. p. 134. Dr. Lightfoot’s Horae Hebraicae on Matt, xxvii. 9. (Works, 
voL ii. p. 265.) 

1 This is taken from the Hebrew, but the words are Syriac or Chaldee. Sabachthani is the 
word now in the Chaldee Paraphrase. (Dr. Randolph, p. SO.) 

P 3 


Tables of Quotations from [Part I. Ch. 

34. Lev. xii. 8. 


Two turtles or tivo young 

35. Isa. lxi. 1, 2, 

rrrs pr rrrr nn 

c ,, :r it:: \in rrsrr 
zritrt :ri:c:: eirn 
Kip : nip npe E’TDxii yhti 
mrr? psrrn:c 

The Spirit of the Lord 
God is upon me, because the 
Lord hath anointed me to 
preach good tidings unto the 
meek, he hath sent me to bind 
up the broken-hearted, to pro- 
claim liberty to the captives, 
and the opening of the prison 
to them that are bound : to 
proclaim the acceptable year 
of the Lord. 

33, Psal, Ixix. 10. (9. of 
English version.) 

The zeal of thine house hath 
eaten me up. 

37. Psal. Jxxviii, 24. 

iirs7 jn: crsizrp**: 

And had given tliem of the 
corn of heaven. 

Lev. xii. S. 

Avq rpvyopas ij Suo peo&aovs 


Two turtle-doves or two 
young pigeons. 

Isa. lxi. 1, 2. 

Uuevpa K vpiov ew’ epe } ov 
elveKev expicre pe* Evayyeki- 
^etrfrcu irraxois a^wraAKe pe, 
tctfctadctL tov; (rvinerpippepovs 
Tf]v fcapfhav, tcqpui-a t euxfidhM- 
rots a(j>€ffiv t koli rvtpkois ava- 
€k €i]/iy Kakecreu evtavrov Ku- 
piou Sgktop. 

The Spirit of the Lord is 
upon me, for the business for 
which he hath anointed me. 
He hath sent me to preach 
the Gospel to the poor, to 
heal the broken-hearted, to 
preach deliverance to the cap- 
tives, and recovering of sight 
to the blind, to proclaim the 
acceptable year of the Lord. 

Psal. Ixviii. 9. (Ixix, 9. of 
English Bible.) 

'O tfkos tov oikov trov koltc- 
<paye pe. 

Zeal for thine house hath 
consumed me. 

Psal. lxxviii. 24. 

Kcu aprov ovpavov ebccKev 

And he gave them the bread 
of heaven. 

Lukeii. 24. 

2,evy os rpvyovccv ri Svo peocr- 
ffovs ’Wepicrepcop. 

A pair of turtle-doves, or 
two young pigeons. 

Lukeiv. 18, 19. 

ITveujuo Kvpiov ew’ epe, ov 
€V€K€P expire pe evayyeki- 
gecrdcu tsTT uxois * airearaKne pe 
taeaa’Qai rous awrerpippevovs 
TTjv fcapdcap , K7)pv^at aixpakco - 
t ois acpecnv, mi rvcpkois ava- 
§A etfnp, aTroaretkai redpava- 
pevovs sv a(p€<T€i‘ Ki?pu|ai 
epiuvrop Kvpiov Setcrop . 1 

The Spirit of the Lord is 
upon me, because he hath 
anointed me to preach the 
Gospel to the poor, he hath 
sent me to heal the broken- 
hearted, to preach deliverance 
to the captives, and recovering 
of sight to the blind, to set at 
liberty them that are bruised, 
to preach the acceptable year 
of the Lord. 

Johnii. 17. 

f O gykos tov oikov ffov k are- 
<paye pe. 

The zeal of thine house hath 
eaten me up. 

John vi. 31. 

Aprov €K tov ovpapov ebaKep 
avroLs (payetv. 

He gave them bread from 
heaven to eat. 

38. Isa. liv.13. 


And all thy children shall 
be taught of the Loan. 

Isa. liv, 13- 

Kat icavras rovs vtovs crov 
StSaKTovs &eov. 

Even thy sons, all instructed 
of God. 

John vi. 45. 

Ktti tcrovTcu ravres SiScucrot 
tov ©eou. 

And they shall be all taught 
of God. 

1 This quotation is made exactly from the Septuagint, as far as the words aixpakarois 
atpetnvj deliverance to the captives : and it accords with the Hebrew, except that the word Je- 
hovah twice occurs there, which is omitted in the Septuagint and by the Evangelist. But, 
instead of the Hebrew clause, translated the opening of the prison to them that are bound , we 
read rv<pkois avaikeipiu recovering of sight to the blind ; which words are adopted by St, Luke, 
who adds, aroc-reihat re&pawpevovs ev atpecri, setting at liberty them that are bruised , which 
words do not appear in the Septuagint. The difference between this quotation as it appears 
in Luke iv. IS. and the original Hebrew is thus accounted for — Jesus Christ doubtless read 
the prophet Isaiah in Hebrew, which was the language constantly used in the Synagogue ; but 
the Evangelist, writing for the use of the Hellenists (or Greek Jews) who understood and 
used only the Septuagint version, quotes that version, which on the whole gives the same sense 
as the Hebrew. Le Clerc, Dr. Owen, and Michaelis, are of opinion that they are either a 
different version of the Hebrew, and inserted from the margin of the evangelical text, or 
else that they are a gloss upon it, taken from Isa. Iviii. 6. where the very words occur in the 
Greek, though the Hebrew text is very different. The Arabic version agrees nearly with 
the Evangelist. The Hebrew appears formerly to have contained more than we now find 
in die manuscripts and printed editions. (Scott, Randolph.) 


VI. Sect. I. $ 1.] The Old Testament in the New. 

39. Isa. xii. 3. 

Psal. lxxxii. 6. 
Eyu enra , 3eoi ecrre. 
I said, Ye are gods. 

40. Psal. lxxxii. 6. 

cna 'mw 

I have said, Ye are gods. 

John vii, 38. 

r O iriffrevtoy as epe, kc&ws 

€ITT€V 7} yparpl}, TZrOTCLfXQl €K T7JS“ 

KoiMas avTov fievcrovcriv vdaros 
%arros. 1 

He that believeth on me, 
as the Scripture bath said, out 
of his belly shall flow rivers 
of living water. 

Johns. 34. 

E7W ciTra, 3 sol etrre. 

I said. Ye are gods. 

41. Zech. ix. 9. 

See the passage, in No. 22. 
pp. 210, 211. supra. 

42. Isa. liii. 1. 

mrr rnn ■urwottb 'n 
i nnbn: 

Who hath believed our re- 
port ? And to whom hath the 
arm of the Lord been re- 
vealed ? 

Zech. ix. 9. 

See the passage in No. 22. 
pp. 210, 211. suju'a. 

Isa. liii. 1. 

Kupte, t is eTurrevae rrj aKorj 
rifHov ; 

Kat 6 ppaxMW K vptov tipi 
air6Ka\v<pQ7 ] ; 

Lord, who hath believed 
our report ? 

And to whom hath the arm 
of the Lord been revealed (or, 
made manifest) ? 

John xii. 15. (See Matt. xxi. 

5. pp. 210, 211. supra.) 

M 77 $o§ov, frvyarep 
tSou, 0 BatriXeus aov ep^ercu, 
tca&7)[j.evos eiri ttccKop opov. 3 

Fear not, daughter of Sion; 
behold thy king cometh, sit- 
ting on an ass’s colt. 

John xii. 38. (and see Rom. x. 


Kvpie, T is emarTeverG T7) aKOIJ 

Kai 6 fipaxiwp Kvpiov tipi 
aTT€Ka\v<p6TJ ■ 

Lord, who hath believed 
our report ? 

And to whom hath the arm 
of the Lord been revealed ? 

43. Isa. vi. 9, 10. Isa. vi. 9, 10. Jobn xii * 40 * (See Matt sin. 

, __ 14, 15. p. 209. supra.) 

See the passage, No. 16. See the passage in No. 1 6. TeruQWKev avruy tqvs o<t>. 
p. 209. supra. p. 209 -supra. SraApovs, Kai weirupaiKev avrup 

ttjp KapSiav iva pij iBatri rois 

1 There are no words answering to these either in the Septuagint, or in the Hebrew. Ic 
is indeed no citation, but only a reference or allusion. The Jewish writers inform us that on 
the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, it was usual to pour water on the altar, to denote 
their praying then for the blessing of rain, the latter rain, which was then wanted against their 
approaching seed-time : This water they drew out of Siloah, and brought it with great pomp 
and ceremony to the temple, playing with their instruments, and singing, and repeating the 
words of the prophet : With joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation. (Isa. xii. 3.) 
Our Lord, according to his usual custom, takes occasion from hence to instruct the people* 
and applies this ceremony and this scripture to himself : He signifies to them that the water 
here spoken of was to be had from him alone — If any man thirst , let him come unto me, and 
drink : He that believeth in me, as the Scripture hath said , out of his belly shall flow rivers of 
living water. — The word Koihta , here translated belly, signifies a hollow receptacle, and may 
properly be used for such cisterns or reservoirs, as were usually built to receive the waters 
issuing from their fountains: The meaning then is, that every true believer shall, according 
to this scripture, repeated by the people on this occasion, abound with living water, have within 

• him such a cistern, as will supply living water, both for his own and other’s use ; What is 
signified by water we are informed in the next verse, viz. the gifts of the Spirit : The like me- 
taphor our Lord makes use of, John iv. 1 0. And in the prophetic writings (see Isa. xliv. 3. 
Iv. 1. Ezek, xxx vi. 25-27. Zech. xiv. 8.) it is often peculiarly used to signify the gifts and 
graces of the Spirit to be conferred under the gospel dispensation. (Dr. Randolph, p. 31.) 

2 This differs both from the Septuagint and the Hebrew, and also from the citation in 
' Matt. xxi. 5. The evangelist either followed some other translation, or chose to express 

briefly the sense, but not die words of the prophet. (Ibid.) 

P 4 


[Part I, Ch. 

Tables of Quolations from 

44. Psal. xli. 9. 

; aps 'ta 7n:n taw 

Mine own familiar friend, 

which did eat of my 

bread, hath lift up his heel 
against me. 

45, Psal. cix. 3. (See Psal. 
xxxv, 19. and lxix. 4.) 

: n:r? 

They ...fought against me 
without a cause. 

46* Psal. ssii. 19- (18. of 
English version.) 
on 1 2 ? naa iptar 
t tana Vra’ 

They part my garments 
among them, and cast lots 
upon my vesture. 

47. Exod. xii. 46. (See Psal. 
xxxiv. 20.) 

s iryiaerrw assi 

Neither shall ye break a 
bone thereof. 

48* Zech. xii. 10. 

rqrrwK n* ^ rn'irw 

Psal. xli. 9. 

*0 ea&tuv aprovs pov epeya- 
\W€V 67r’ epe irrepyurpov. 

He, who ate of my bread, 
hath lifted up his heel against 

Fsal. cix. 3. 

EroXep'tjo'av pe Supeav. 

They fought against me 
without cause. 

Psal. xxii. 18. 

Aiepepuravro ra Iparta pov 
iavrois, kcu €7ri 7ov lp.anajj.ov 
pov e§aA ov K\T)pov. 

They parted my raiment 
among them, and for my ves- 
ture they did cast lots. 

Exod. xii. 46. 

Kat oa7ovv ov ffvvrpi\pere 
an avrov. 

And ye shall not break a 
bone thereof. 

Zech. xii. 10* 

EwiSAeiJ/ovTcu wpos pe, av& 
uv KaTup^TjaavTOw 

o<p&aKpots, Kat voijaotai rrj Kap - 
5m, tcai emarpatpwait tcai taaco - 
pai avrovs . 3 

He hath blinded their eyes 
and hardened their heart ; that 
they should not see with their 
eyes, nor understand with their 
heart, and be converted, and 
I should heal them. 

Johnxiii. 18 . 

'O rpcaytav per epov rov 
aprov, eirrjpev eir’ epe rrjv 
• mrepvav avrov. 

He that eateth bread with 
me, hath lifted up his heel 
against me. 

John xv. 25. 

E piarjaav pe dajpeav. ® 

They hated me without a 

John xix. 24. 

Aiepspuravro ra Ipana pov 
kavrois, tcai tin rov Ipanapov 
pov €&a\ov KXrjpov. 

They parted my raiment 
among them, and for my ves- 
ture they did cast lots. 

John xix. 36. 

O arovv ov avvrpiGTjaerai 
avrov . 3 

A bone of him shall not be 

John xix. 37. 

'ChpOJ/TOU € 1 $ 6v €%€K€V T9J- 
aav . 4 

1 The Evangelist has here given us the sense of the Prophet in short : If we suppose that 
Kaos ovros (as it is in the Hebrew mn asn) is to be understood as the nominative case before 
rervtpXarcev, (it being not unusual for words that signify a multitude to be joined with plural 
pronouns or adjectives) and read abrwp with an aspirate, the citation will be a good translation 
of the original, only somewhat abridged. (Dr. Randolph on Quotations, p. 31.) 

2 This quotation agrees both with the Septuagint and with the Hebrew, except that what 
the former renders enoKeprjaav {fought against ), is by the evangelist rendered epiarjaav ( the ij 
hated)- Or possibly the passage intended to be cited may be Psal. xxxiv. (xxxv. of English 
Bible) 19. where the Psalmist speaks of those who were his enemies wrongfully; — piffovvres 
pe Bu'peav who hate me without cause - (Randolph, Scott.) 

s This gives the sense both of the Septuagint and the Hebrew, except that it expresses in 
the passive voice what is there spoken in the active. Or it may be taken from Psal. xxxiv. 20. 
where it expressed passively, thus : To oora avrcov' kv avrtav ov avvTptfZriasrai. He keepeth 
all their bones; not one of them shall be broken. — (Randolph, p.32 ) 

4 It is evident that the Evangelist here plainly read (Aim) instead of (me) in the 
Hebrew ; But so also read thirty-six Hebrew MSS. and two antient editions. And that this 
Is the true reading appears by what follows — and they shall mourn for him. On the authority 
of these manuscripts, Archbishop Newcome reads and translates v*7« hinu (Minor Prophets, 
p, SSOwfifeo edit.) 

VI. Sect. I. § 1.] The Old Testament in the New. 


They shall look on him 
whom they pierced. {Archbp. 
Newcome's version , ) 

49. Fsal. Jxix. 26 . ( 25 . of 
English version.) 

(And see Psal. cxix. 8.) 
no©: nnTtr'nrn 
: its* 

Let their habitation be de- 
solate, and let none dwell in 
their tents. 

They will look to me in- 
stead of the things, concern- 
ing which (or against which) 
they have contemptuously 

Psal. Ixix. 25 . 

FevTfi&Tjrco tj eiravAts avrcov 
7) prjpcopevrj, kcu ev rots (rtcqvco- 
pacnv avrcov prj ecrrca 5 Karot- 


Let their tent ( or habitation) 
be desolate, and in their dwell- 
ings no inhabitant. 

They shall look on him 
whom they pierced. 

Actsi. 20. 

TevrjBijrco V €vavAts avrov 
epijuos, Kat j utj ecrrco 6 Karoucav 
ev avrrj . 1 

Let his habitation be deso- 
late, and let no man dwell 

50. Psal. cix. 8. 

; *in» np> imps 

Let another take his office. 

51. Joel iii, 1-5. (ii. 28-32. 
of English version.) 

'rm-n« -pstuN rrm 
DS'rmi dd’isi i«aai nm-bD bs 
taa'iim pobrr mnbn cn^pt 
DHis>n-73> an mnt mmn 
norm D'o'i ninQian-Si'i 
Q’nsin mnai s 'rm-na “pBsjN 
nriom w«i tn D'otoa 
rrvm “pro ‘jsrr isoun : pp 
*man mrr dv nii tsib 
d m Mipt-nwM to n>m : tniam 
rata* mn» 

And it shall come to pass 
afterward, that I will pour out 
my spirit upon all flesh ; and 
your sons and your daughters 
shall prophesy, your old men 
shall dream dreams, and your 
young men shall see visions. 
And also upon the servants 
and the handmaids in those 
days will I pour out my spirit. 
And I will show wonders in 
the heavens and in the earth, 

Psal. cix. 8. 

Kat rtjv eirtffKOirrjv avrov 
Aaiot erepos. 

And let another take his 
office, [or bishoprick] . 

Joelii. 28—32. 

Kat ecrrat pera ravra, Kat 
€KX et0 a7r ° T0V ^evpaTOS I UOV 
ein iracrav (TapKa, Kat nrpotpTj- 
reucrwtnv ot vtot vp cov, /cat at 
frvyar epes vpcov, Kat ot rgrpecriu- 
repot vpcov evvrrvia ewirviacrBrj- 
rovrat, kcu ot veavicTKOL vpcov 
dpacrets o\povrat. Kat ein rovs 
S ovAovs pov kcu eirt ray SovAas 
pov ev reus rjpepats eKewais 
€KX eu a7ro T0U revevparos pov. 
Kat Scocrco repara ev ovpavco , kcu. 
em rrjs yys atpa /cat wvp Kat 
arptZa Kairvov. 'O rjAtos pera- 
crrpacbrjo-eraL ets ctkotos , /cat tj 
creAriVT} eis atpa, nrpiv eAdeiv 
rrjv ijpepav Kvptov ttjv peyaArtjv, 
Kat €Tri<pav 7 ]. Kat etn-at, was 
ds av eiriKaAeOTtrat to ovopa 
Kvptov crudricreTQi. 

And it shall Come to pass 
after those things, that I will 
pour out a portion of my spirit 
upon all flesh ; and your sons 
and your daughters shall pro- 
phesy ; and your old men 
shall dream dreams, and your 
young men shall see visions. 
And on my servants and on 
my handmaids in those days I 
will pour out a portion of my 
spirit. And I will exhibit 

Acts i. 20. 

T7 ]V eirtffKOTn}? avrov AaSoi 

His bishoprick let another 

Acts ii. 17 — 21. (See Rom. 
x. 13.) 

Ka; ecrrat ev rats ecrx aT &s 
Tjpepats (Aeyet 6 ©eos), e/cxew 
airo rov 'rsrvevparos pov em 
iracrav <rap/ca* «at urpo^reu- 
crovo'iv ot vtot vpcov ^ Kat at frv- 
7 arepes vpcov, kcu ol veavicrmt 
vpcov bpacrets o\povrat, Kat ot 
wpecrjSvrepot vpcov evwrvta ev- 
vwvtacr&rjcrovrau K at ye ewt 
rovs SovAovs pov Kat erri ras 
SovAas pov , ev reus ypepats 
e Ketvats eiexeto airo rov m/eo- 
paros pov , Kat irpocpijTevcrovcn. 
Kat 5 coffco re par a ev rco ovpavoo 
avco, kcu cnjpeLa errt rijs yrfs 
Karco, atpa Kat tsrvp kcu arpifia 
Kairvov. c O tjAios peraffrpa- 
<p7}0'erai eis ctkotos, Kat tj ere- 
Atjvtj eis atpa, irptv Tj cAdetv njv 
rjpepav Kvptov ttjv peyaAijv Kat 
emipavij. Kat ecrrat, vras bs 
av eirtKaAecrijrai to ovopa Kv- 
ptov, crcodtjcerai. 

And it shall come to pass 
in the last days (saith God), 
I will pour out of my spirit 
upon all flesh : and your sons 
and your daughters shall pro- 
phesy, and your young men 
shall see visions, and your old 
men shall dream dreams ; And 
on my servants and on my 
handmaidens, I will pour out 
in those days of my spirit: 
and they shall prophesy . And 

1 This agrees in sense, though not in words with the Septuaglnt, which is a literal trans- 
lation of the Hebrew. The only difference is, that the apostle applies to a particular person. 
What Was spoken by David of his enemies in the plural. (Dr. Randolph, p. 32.) 


Tables of Quotations from [Part L Ch. 

blood and fire, and pillars of 
smoke. The sun shall be 
turned into darkness and the 
moon into blood, before the 
great and the terrible day of 
the Lord come. And it shall 
Come to pass, that whosoever 
shall call on the name of the 
Lord shall be delivered. 

wonders in the heavens and 
on the earth, blood and fire, 
and smoky vapour. The sun 
shall be turned into darkness, 
and the moon into blood, be- 
fore the coming of the great 
and illustrious day of the 
Lord. And it shall come to 
pass, that whosoever shall call 
on the name of the Lord shall 
be saved. 

I will show wonders in hea- 
ven above, and signs in the 
earth beneath, blood and fire, 
and vapour of smoke. The 
sun shall be turned into dark- 
ness, and the moon into blood, 
before that great and notable 
day of the Lord come. And 
it shall come to pass that who- 
soever shall call on the name 
of the Lord shall be saved. 

52. Psal. xvi. 8-11. 

’3 r©n >ia:^ mrr >rm© 
no© pb i '5i»3*03 >rn>o 
: rr©3b p©> n©3 -fc ]N >1133 ‘pan 

jnrrwV tins?*? >OBa 3ttrr«3 >3 
wnn inn© mai*? “p'Dn 
jaB-n» mno© 2 i© a^n ma 

I have set the Lord always 
before me; because he is at 
my right hand I shall not be 
moved. Therefore my heart 
is glad, and my glory re- 
joiceth ; my flesh also shall 
rest in hope. For thou wilt 
not leave my soul in hell, nor 
suffer thy Holy One to see 
corruption. Thou wilt show 
me the path of life ; in thy 
presence is fulness of joy. 

53. Beut. xviin IS. 19. 

£}>£> >2133 "pnNQ pIpD tf’32 

t p*i3©n yri* mn> 

i©n ©>«n n>m 

©VIK ©2K '©©3 13V 1©N >131 


Psal.xvi. 8— 11. 

TlpoupoifXTjU rov Kvpiov evw- 
iriov piov 5:a iravTos, Sr t €K 
Sefrccv pov eGriv, Iva p7) Ga- 
XevBw. A ta rovro 7]vtppavdn] 
7 ) Kapdia pov, kcu rjyakktaGaro 
r\ ykotGGa pov eri de Kai 7} 
crap| pov KaraGMjvaGet 67 r’ 
6 \ 7 rt 5 t. 'Otl ovic eyKarakei- 
\J/eis r7jv tyvxnv pov eis adyjv, 
ovde dcoGeis rov hffiov crov idetv 
diaipBopav. E 7 vcapiGas pot Sdovs 
gcd7]s ’ wkypcvGeis pie evcppoGvvris 
pera rov TpotfuTrov <rov. 

X foresaw the Lord conti- 
nually before me, because he 
is at my right hand that I may 
not be moved. Therefore my 
heart was gladdened, and my 
tongue exulted with joy ; 
moreover my flesh also will 
dwell in hope. For thou wilt 
not leave my soul in Hades, 
(or, the mansion of dead,) nor 
suffer thine Holy One to see 
corruption. Thou hast made 
known to me the ways of life. 
Thou with thy presence wilt 
fill me with joy. 

Beut. xviii. 15. 19. 

npotfirirviv €K reov adekipav 
<tov 9 us 6 / ue, ava<xrt)Gei goi Kv- 
pio$ S ©cos gov* avrov clkqv - 

GeG&e Kai 6 avQpanros 

ds eav py} aicovGn dGa av \a- 

Acts ii. 25 — 28. 

UpocopupTjv rov Kvpiov ev to- 
rn ov piov 5ia iravros, Sr l e/c 
Sejieoy juou eGriv, iva pLT) Ga - 
kevQu. A ta rovro evcppavdrj 
7] Kapdia piov , Kai 7}ydhkiuGaro 
7 ) ykuGGa piov • e n de Kai 7} 
Gap £ piov KaraGKTjvtoGei 67T* 
ekmdr * On ovk eyKarakei- 
\fnis rr\v \pvxyv pov eis adov, 
ou5e duGets rov Sglov gov ideiv 
diacpBopav. 'EyvaipiGas poi 65ovs 
gu 7 ]S‘ 'ark7]paoG€LS pie 6V<ppOGUV7]S 
pera rov TGpoGtoirov gov, 1 

I foresaw the Lord always 
before me face, for he is on 
my right hand, that I should 
not be moved : therefore did 
my heart rejoice, and my 
tongue was glad ; moreover 
also my flesh shall rest in 
hope ; because thou wilt not 
leave my soul in hell, neither 
wilt thou suffer thine Holy 
One to see corruption. Thou 
hast made known to me the 
ways of life ; thou shalt make 
me full of joy with thy coun- 

Acts iii. 22, 23. 

VLpotpTjrriv vpiv avaGrrjGei 
K vpios 6 ©cos vpuv ck ruv 
adektpuv vpiav, ws epe m avrov 
okovG€G&€ Kara 7r avra Sgu av 
Xd\7)G7) irpos vpas. E Grai de, 

* This quotation is taken from the Septuagint, but differs in several respects from the He- 
brew, For >m© is put TrpoupupTjv. The Vulgate here agrees with the Septuagint; the 
Syriac and Chaldee versions with the Hebrew. The Arabic differs from them all; for this 
difference it is not easy to account. Again, for >1133, my glory , is put tj ykccGGa pov, my 
tongue . The Vulgate and Arabic, as well as the Septuagint, agree with the apostle; the 
Chaldee and Syriac with the Hebrew. For >>3© is put 'srkypaGeis pie. Here again the Vul- 
gate, Arabic, and Septuagint agree. The Syriac reads satiabor .• the true reading, Br. Randolph 
Conjectures, might perhaps be J»3©X, which the Septuagint might translate according to the 
isense vkTjpwGeis pe. These are but trifling differences ; the most important is that TTDI7, 
Bdy Ones , in the plural number, is translated by the Septuagint and cited by the apostle, and 
applied to our Saviour in the singular, rov Sglov gov. Thine Holy One . This reading is con- 
the Keri, or marginal reading, by all the antient versions, and by one hundred and 
the best Hebrew MSS., and it is required by the sense. The Masorites have marked 
5 doubtful. See Kennicott’s Dissert X. p. 498*, and also bis Dissertatio 
Qenerabs, $ i^ Randolph, p. 32. Owen, p. 71. 


VI. Sect. LSI.] The Old Testament in the New. 

The Lord thy God will 
raise up unto thee a prophet 
from the midst of thee, of thy 
brethren, like unto me : unto 
him shall ye hearken. — 

And it shall come to pass, that 
whosoever will not hearken 
unto my words, which he shall 
speak in my name, I will re- 
quire it of him. 

54. Gen. xxii. IS. 

parr 12 "[inn iimnm 

And in thy seed snail all 
the nations of the earth be 

55. Psal. ii. 1, 2. 

"larr D'dnVi D'la rrab 
n' 2 rm nsrrv tpn 

Why do the nations rage, 
and the people imagine a vain 
thing? The kings of the 
earth set themselves, and the 
rulers take counsel together, 
against the Lord, and against 
his Anointed. 

56. Gen. xii. 1. 
ta TrnV»ttD'i ’■pnNB "|VV 
q*riN parnN qaa n*iDi 

Get thee out from thy coun- 
try, and from thy kindred, and 
from tby father’s house, unto 
a land that I will show thee. 

57. Gen. xv. 13, 14. 
arn pm ■pm rrrr 
matt sna mi DVii3?i 
'ms?' narrnM dal : ru© 
©mi w*’ jrmnHi p 
t l mi 

KljCrV] & 7TpO<p7jT7]S GKGtVOS €7Ti T£t> 
ovopart jx ou, eyat ckSuctjco) e| 

The Lord thy God will 
raise up for thee, from among 
thy brethren, a prophet like 
unto me; to him shall ye 
hearken. — And whosoever 
will not hearken to what that 
prophet shall speak in my 
name, I will execute ven- 
geance on him. 

Gen. xxii. IS. 

K ai GVGvXoyij&Tjtrovrai gp ra> 
(nrepjuari crov ravra ra g^vtj 

T 7}S 77JS. 

And in thy seed shall all 
the nations of the earth be 

Psal. ii. 1, 2. 

'Ivan €<ppva£av edrrj, Kai 
XaoL ep.e\er7)(Tav KGva; Uap- 
Gcrrrjcrav ol j3a cti\gis tt }s 77 jy, Kai 
ol apxovrss (TWT]X^WO.V era TO 
atfTO Kara r ou K vpiov, Kai Kara 
rov Xptcrrov avrov. 

Why did the nations rage, 
and the people imagine (or 
meditate) vain things? The 
kings of the earth stood up (or 
combined), and the rulers as- 
sembled together against the 
Lord and his Anointed. 

Gen. xii. 1 . 

E£g\&g gk rrjs 775 s crov /cat 
gk ttjs crvyyGVGias crov , Kai gk 
rov oikov rov warpos <rov * Kai 
devpo Gis rrjv yriv, t]v av trot 

Depart from thy land, and 
from thy kindred, and from 
the house of thy father, and 
come to the land which I will 
show thee. 

Gen. xv. 13, 14. 

II apoiKOP Gcrrai ro inrGpfxa 
crov gv 717 ovk tSta, Kcu SovXa u 
trovertv avrovs, Kai Kamxrovariv 
avrovs, Kai rarreivoxxovcriv av- 
rov s } rGrptsucocna gttj. To 5e 
e3ros, & Gap HqvXgvctovcti, Kpivco 

iraffa tyvxn, yris av (xi) wcovcnj 
rov vrpotyrrrav gkgivov, e£oAo- 
&pGvfrricrGrat gk rov \aov . 1 

A prophet shall the Lord 
your God raise up unto you, 
of your brethren, like unto 
me ; him shall ye hear in all 
things whatsoever he shall say 
unto you. And it shall come 
to pass, that every soul which 
will not hear that prophet, 
shall be destroyed from among 
the people. 

Acts iii. 25. 

Kai ra crirGpfian crov gvgu* 
Xoyrifrrjcovrai vacrai at nra- 
rpiai ttjs 777s. 

And in thy seed shall all 
the kindreds (i. e. nations, as 
being derived from one com- 
mon ancestor) of the earth be 

Acts iv. 25, 26. 

'Ivan ecppv a\av g 8 vtj , Kai Xaot 
G/j.G\Gr7]crav Keva ; Uapccrr^rav 
ol f3aai\ei$ ttjs 777s, koi oZ 
a pxoptgs crwTjxOycrav gtti ro 
avro Kara rov Kvpiov, icat Kara 
rov Xptarov avrov. 

Why did the heathen rage , 
and the people imagine vain 
things. The kings of the earth 
stood up, and the rulers were 
gathered together, against the 
Lord and against his Christ 
(i, e. Messiah, or Anointed 

Acts vii. 3. 

E£eAde gk ttjs 777s crov, Kai 
gk ttjs crvyyGVGias crou, Kai tievpa 
gis 777 v, ftp av croi 

Get thee out of thy country, 
and from thy kindred, and 
come into the land which I 
shall show thee. 

Acts vii. 6, 7. 

r Ori Gcrrai ra arc epp.a avrov 
Trapoucov gv yi) aXXorpm, koi 
B ovKucromriv avro, koi naKto- 
<T over iv err} rerpmcooia. Kai 
TO gBpos, is gov SovXGvffucr 1, 
KplPta GPU, GlTTGV 5 0€OS‘ KCU 

* This expresses the sense both of the Hebrew and Septuagint, but not the words ; it may 
possibly be taken from some other translation or paraphrase. (Dr. Randolph. 33.) 


Tables of Quotations from [Part I. Ch. 

That thy seed shall be a 
stranger in a land that is not 
theirs, and shall serve them, 
and they shall afflict them four 
hundred years. And also that 
nation whom they shall serve 
will I judge : and afterwards 
shal 1 they come out with great 

58. Gen. xlvi. 27. 
nwnn upr-rw tjcsrrb 
• o'ra® nonso 

All the souls of the house 
of Jacob, which came into 
Egypt, were threescore and 
ten souls, 

59. (See Josh. xxiv. 32.) 

60 Amos v. 25-27. 

frtuntr sn Q'mtn 

: rva mo awa wdi 

rwi taaaVo mao n« Dn«©:i 

ItJN 3313 D3'obs p*3 

G3HM 'rtafTl i D3 5 ? DH'tl5 

eyw per a Be ravra, sgeXtvcrov- 
rai u )5e juera airocncGV7]$ ToKAys. 

Thy seed shall sojourn in 
a land not their own. And 
they shall be enslaved and 
afflicted, and humbled, four 
hundred years. But the na- 
tion which they shall serve I 
will judge ; and after that 
they shall come out hither 
with much wealth. 

Gen. xlvi. 27. 

Tiaffat. i|/ux at oikov latecoS at 
€i(T€\8ov<Tai pera I cucuS eis A i- 
Avrrop, tf/uxat ۤ8ojU7]KOVTa- 

All the souls of Jacob’s 
house, that went with him into 
Egypt, were seventy-five souls. 

Amos v. 25, 26. 

Mt j (Ttpayia tcai 3 vcrias rrpocr- 
T\veyKa re poi 3 oucos IffparjX, 
reffo-apaKovra. cry) ev T7j epypca ; 
Ka: aveAa&re ttjv <ncr\vT)P tov 
MoAox, km ro aarpop rov 3eou 
vpav 'Pai<£av, rovs rmrovs av- 
t up ous €TToi7i(tar€ ka VTOIS' tcai 
peroiKicv vpias eirtKeiva Aapa- 

juera ravra egeAevaovrai, Kat 
Aarpevcrovcrt jjloi ev ra tottu) 
ravra . 1 

That his seed should sojourn 
in a strange land, and that 
they should bring them into 
bondage, and entreat them evil 
four hundred years. And the 
nation, to whom they shall be 
in bondage, will I judge, said 
God : and after that shall they 
come forth, and serve me in 
this place. 

Actsvii. 14. 

A-rrocrreiAas Be I wrr$ ptr&- 
ica\€(raro top wrarepa avrov 
JaKtoS Kai -racrav rrjv cnryye- 
vetav avrov €P ij/vxais k€$op7j- 

Then sent Joseph, and call- 
ed his father Jacob to him, 
and all his kindred, threescore 
and fifteen souls. 

Actsvii. 16. 

e O tavTjcraro ASpaap riprjs 
apyvptov irapu rap vtcop Ep- 
pop rov 2vxejU‘ 2 

That Abraham bought for 
a sum of money, of the sons 
of Emmor, the father of Sy- 

Acts vii. 42, 43. 

Mr] &<payta Kat 3 vcrias wpoar- 
ijpeyicare pot err) retrarapa- 
Kovra ev rij eprjpu, oikos 
IcrparjA ; Kai aveAaSere rr\v 
cna\vr\v rov Mo\ox , Kai ro a<r- 
rpop rov 3 eov upuv *P eptpap, 
rovs rwrovs ovs eiroerjaare 
wpoaKvveip avroLs * Kat pcrot- 
K ua vpas ev4Ketva BaGvAoovos. 3 

t It seems to have been Stephen’s design to give a short account of the conduct of God 
towards the children of Israel. In this he does not confine himself to the words.of Moses, 
but abridges his history, and sometimes adds a clause by way of explication. The present 
citation agrees very nearly with the Hebrew. It only adds, cnrev 6 Geos ; and again, Kat 
Aarpevcrovcrt pot ev rta tottw ravra; which seems to refer to v. 16. where it is said, they shall 
come hither again. (Dr, Randolph on the Quotations, p. 33.) 

- In this quotation there is a very considerable error in the copies of the New Testament ; 
and some commentators have supposed that Abraham’s purchase of a piece of land of the 
children of Hetb, for a sepulchre, was alluded to. But this is clearly a mistake. It is most 
probably as Bishop Pearce (in loc.) and Dr* Randolph (p. 33.) have conjectured, that Afyaap 
is an interpolation, which has crept into the text from the margin. If therefore we omit this 
name, the sense will run very clearly thus, fib Jacob went down into Egypt and died , he and 
mr fathers. And they (our fathers) were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre, 
which he{ Jacob) bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem . See 
Jpsh. xxiv. 32. and Dr. Whitby, on Actsvii. 16. 

3 seem # s to be taken from the Septuagint, though with some variation. The only 
considerable difference is that we here read BaSuKcopos, Babylon , instead of Aapamcov, Da~ 
mascus, in the Septuagint. The Hebrew and all the antient versions read Damascus, as also 
d&.o&e or two manuscripts ; and this seems to be the true reading. The Septuagint agrees 
in sense, though not literally, with the Hebrew. *P aupav, or 'PepQav, was the name of the 
same idol in Egypt, which was called fv3 (chiux) in Syria, and represented the planet Saturn. 


VI. Sect. I. § 3.] The Old Testament in the Ne*w. 

Have ye offered unto me 
sacrifices and offerings, in the 
wilderness, forty years, O 
house of Israel ? But ye have 
borne the tabernacle of your 
Moloch and Chiun, your 
images, the star of your god 
which ye made to yourselves. 
Therefore I will cause you 
to go into captivity beyond 

61. Isa. Ixvi. 1, 2. 

trnwn rnrr re 
ntJN rvi nr'M 'bn mn p»ni 
: 'nm 3D Dipn nrw 'b-mn 
mro *"p rtorbavwi 

Thus saith the Loud, the 
heaven is my throne, and the 
earth is my footstool: where 
is the house that ye build unto 
me? And where is the place 
of my rest? For all those 
things hath mine hand made. 

62. Isa. liii. 7 , 8. 

' 2 &b biroi bnv rmob m)3 
; vs nnc' htbi nnbw mu 
vnrnsi npb toscnoi 
■ maa u nmiu' 'D 

He is brought as a lamb to 
the slaughter ; and as a sheep 
before her shearers is dumb, 
so he openeth not his mouth. 
He was taken from prison and 
from judgment; and who shall 
declare his generation ; for he 
was cut off out of the land of 
the living. 

63. (See Psal.lxxxix.’20. and 
- l Sam. xiii. 14.) 

Did you, O house of Israel, 
offer to me burnt offerings 
and sacrifices forty years in 
the wilderness? You have, 
indeed, taken up the tent of 
Moloch, and the star of your 
god Raiphan — those types of 
them which you have made 
for yourselves. Therefore I 
will remove you beyond Da- 

Isa. Ixvi 1, 2. 

Ovnos Aeyei K vpios, 'O ov - 
pavos pov &povos, kcu rj yy 
fa&oirofiiov rwv tt oBtap (iov m tto iov 


votes r ovos T7]S Kararavcrecvs 
fiov ; ncw'Ta yap ravra €7rot7 j- 
(rev 7} x et P fwv. 

Thus saith the Lord, The 
heaven is my throne, and the 
earth my footstool. What sort 
of an house will ye build me? 
And of what sort shall be the 
place of my rest? For all 
these things my hand hath 

Isa. liii. 7. 

'fls TrpoSarov eirt <r<f> ay7\v 
7)x&n> Kat &s afivos evavnov 
too f ceipovros atpcDVOS, ovnos 
qvk avotj€t ro crTo/xa. Ev tt) 
ravtivutfsi 7) icpicris avrov 7}pSy 
rr\v yeveav avrov ns SwryTjtre- 
rai ; bn aiperai air o n js yTjs 
7} % 037] avr ov. 

He was led as a sheep to the 
slaughter, and as a lamb be- 
fore its shearer is dumb, so he 
openeth not his mouth. In his 
humiliation his legal trial was 
taken away. Who will declare 
his manner of life? Because his 
life was taken from the earth. 

O ye house of Israel, have 
ye offered to me slain beasts 
and sacrifices, forty years in 
the wilderness ? Yea, ye took 
up the tabernacle of Moloch, 
and the star of your god Rem- 
phan, figures which ye made 
to worship them, and I will 
carry you away beyond Ba- 

Acts vii. 49, 50. 
e O ovpavos j uot Srpovos, rj 8e 

7 7J VWOTTotilOV T 03V TTqScOV fiOV' 

7 tolov oikov oiKoSopLTjcrere jxol- 
\ey €t K vpios ‘ 7j ns r ottos ttjs 
tcarairautrecos fiov ; Oux* V X ei P 
piov evoiritre tout a warra ; 

Heaven is my throne, and 
earth is my footstool: what 
house will ye build me ? saith 
the Lord : or what is the place 
of my rest? Hath not my 
hand made all these things ? 

Acts viii. 32, 33. 

‘Cls tt poSarov eiri <rtparp\v 
7 iX Gr t> KaL bis ap.vas evavnov 
t ov tceipovros avrov a<pcovos, 
ovnos ovk avotyei ro arofia 
avrov . Ev rri raTreivcoerei ou- 
rov i] KpHTLS avrov Tjpdr}- rvpf 
5 e yeveav avrov ns SiTjyrjtrerai ; 
bn aipercu otto t tjs yqs 7 ] gan} 
avrov . 1 

He was led as a sheep to 
the slaughter, and like a lamb 
dumb before his shearer, so 
opened he not his mouth. In 
his humiliation his judgment 
was taken away, and who shall 
declare his generation ? for his 
life is taken from the earth. 

Acts. xiii. 22. 

Ebpov AaSiS rov r ov Icovcu, 
avSpa Kara ttjv KapiStav fiov, fis 
woitjo'cl •aravra to fre\7}fi ara 

I have found David the $on 
of Jesse, a man after my own 
heart, which shall fulfil all my 

See Hammond, Lud. de Dieu, Annot. Lowth on Amos, v. 25. Spencer de Leg. Heb. 
1. iii. c. 3. Michaelis, Supplem. ad Lex. Heb. p. 1225. (Randolph, p. 34.) The apparent 
variance between the prophet and Stephen is of no moment; as the prophecy was fulfilled by 
Salmaneser, king of Assyria, carrying the people of Israel both beyond Damascus and Ba- 
bylon, into the cities of the Medes. See 2 Kings xvii. 6. (Dr. Randolph.) 

1 The quotation is here made from the Septuagint with no material variation ; the pro- 
nouns avrov and amov {him, and Alts) are added by the sacred historian ; the latter twice. The 
variation from the present Hebrew text is greater, but uot so great as to affect the general im- 
port of the passage* (Scott, Randolph.) 


Tables of Quotations from [Part I. Ch. 

64. Psal. it. 7. 

q'jTfc cvn nn» 

Thou arfc my Son, this day 
have I begotten thee. 

63. Isa. Iv. 3. 

rcn sto mi =2: nrrcm 
a':oi«n m 

I will make an everlasting 
covenant with you, even the 
sure mercies of David. 

66. Hab. i. 5. 

irratffn ir'im p'i2i i*n 
x 1 ? taws Src lrran 
two irsaan 

Behold ye, among the hea- 
then, and regard, and wonder 
marvellously ; for I will work 
a work in your days, which ye 
will not believe, though it be 
told pOU. 

67. Isa. xlix. 6. 
tow wrr: ciaT.w ‘■pnnsi 
i pan nsp-TO 

I will also give thee for a 
light to the Gentiles, that thou 
mayest be my salvation unto 
the ends of the earth. 

6S. Amos ix. II, 12. 
rflD-na G’Jth minn oi'i 
jmsirnw wiai rites?: vn 
s dVis ^2 n'n 22i cv» vncnm 
-tel tan* n'wnn ptte 
crnte now ^np2"i«© D'lan 
t n»i nxc? mrr-caa 

Psal.ii. 7. 

T<os pov et tru, e-yw c ryjpepov 
yeyevvrjKa <xe. 

Thou art my Son, this day 
have I begotten thee, 

Isa. Iv. 3. 

Kai dtadiproi uat vptv 8taQy)K7jv 
auavtav 3 ~—ra data A aviB ra 
xsr iffra. 

And I will make with you 
an everlasting covenant, — the 
gracious promises to David, 
which are faithful. 

Hab. i. 5. 

iSere oi K<rra<ppovrirai 9 kcu 
errtSheipare, /cat & avp.aca.Ts 
&avpatrta 3 teat cupavi(Tdr7}re' Si- 
on epyov eyai epya^opat ev rats 
7 }p.epats vpuv, 5 ov p*q rsnerrev - 
eri]T€, eav rts eKSnjyrjrai. 

Behold, ye despxsers, and 
view intently, and be amazed 
at wonderful things, and va- 
nish (or perish). For in your 
days I am doing a work, which 
ye will not believe, though one 
tell you. 

Isa. xlix. 6. 

T edema ere ets (pus edvuv 3 
rov etvat ere ets cron Tfptav eus 
eo'Xaroo T7 js 777s. 

I have appointed thee for 
the light of the nations, that 
thou mayest be for salvation 
to the furthest parts of the 

Amosix. 11, 12, 

Er 77) ijpepa eueivij ava- 
(rrrjtru rt\v CK7tP7}V AaviS rrjv 
vevruiKviaVy kcu avoiKo$opTj(ru 
ret werrruKora avrrjs, Kai ra 
Korea Kappeva avrrjs avacrrTjcru, 
Kai avotKofiaprj&cc avrijv, tea &us 
at rjpepai rov atuvos • *Oir£os 
eK^Tjrrjcrua-iv at Kara\otrot rwv 
av&puTrwVy Kai icavra ra e&vrj, 
efi o vs eiriKeK\rirai to ovopa 
pov €7 r* airrovs, hey et Kopies & 
irotuv Ttavra ravra. 

Acts xiii. 33. 

Tios pov et trv, eyu tnjpepot/ 
yeyevPTjKa ere. 

Thou art my Son, this day 
have I begotten thee. 

Acts xiii. 34. 

A ueru vptv ra Stria AaftS Ta 

I will give you the sure 
mercies of David. 

Acts xiii. 41. 

iSere ot Kara<ppovrjrat, Kai 
fravpatfare, Kai atpavtff&Tjre* 
Sri epyov eyu epya^opat ev rats 
ypepats vpuv, epyov u ov pyj 
TrurreuffTire, eav r is eKStyjyyjrat 

Behold, ye despisers, and 
wonder and perish ; for I 
work a work in your days, 
a work which you shall in no 
wise believe, though a man 
declare it unto you. 

Acts xiii. 47. 

TefretKa <re ets (pus eBvuv, 
rov eLvat ere ets trurriptav eus 
eaxarov ryjs yyj s . 1 

I have set thee to be a light 
of the Gentiles, that thou 
shouldest be for salvation unto 
the ends of the earth. 

Acts xv. 16 , 17 . 

Mera ravra avacrrpetyw, kcu 
avoiKoSopyjau ryjv (rKrjvyjvAaStS 
rijv ’sre’irraKViav 7 Kai ra Kare- 
cTKappeya avrrjs avomoSopyjau, 
Kai a vop&uffw avnjv 'Onus 
av eK^jjrijcrutrtv oi Karahotiroi 
ruv avfbpwiruv rov K vpiov, Kai 
rravra ra e&vrj e<p 3 ovs errtKe~ 
KkTjrat to ovopa pa eir avras, 
\€7€i Kopjos 6 Ts-otuv ravra 

Tjjavra. ~ 

X This quotation is the reading of the Alexandrine copy of the Septuagint, and is a literal 
rendering of the Hebrew, merely omitting the pronoun my; salvation , instead of my salva- 
tion* The Vatican MS. differs very much. 

* This quotation, in general, seems to be taken from the Septuagint, but with several verbal 
variations. The passage, however, varies more materially from the Hebrew, especially in the 
danse, 2Ttef the residue of men may seek after the Lord; w hich, in the authorised English ver- 
ston from the Hebrew, is rendered, That they may possess the remnant of Edom , The Sep- 
fuaght translators evidently read lEnr (tidroshu), not inn” (yiroshd) and (adom), 
not Oim (xdom) ; and the quotation of it by the apostle or the evangelical historian, according 
to that reading, gives great sanction to it. (Scott.) 


VI. Sect. I. $ 1.] The Old Testament in the Net®. 

In that day will I raise up 
the tabernacle of David, that 
is fallen ; and I will close up 
the breaches thereof, and I 
will raise up his ruins, and I 
will build it as in the days of 
old : That they may possess 
the remnant of Edom, and of 
all the heathen, which are 
called by my name, saith the 
Load, that doeth this. 

69. Exod. xxii. 27. (28. of 

English version.) 

: nan -pr-i 

Thou shaltnot ... curse the 
ruler of thy people. 

70. Hab. ii.4. 

: rrrp iru'iDHi pnsn 

The just shall live by his 

In that day I will raise up 
the tabernacle of David, which 
hath fallen* I will rebuild 
those parts of it which have 
fallen to decay, and repair 
what have been demolished. 
I will indeed rebuild it as in 
the days of old, that the rest 
of mankind may seek [the 
Lord ], even all the nations 
■who are called by my name, 
saith the Lord, who doth all 
these things. 

Exod. xxii. 28. 

Apxovra rov Kaov aov ov 
KaKtas tptis. 

Thou shalt not speak evil 
of the ruler of thy people. 

Hab. ii. 4. 

‘O 8e ditccuos tic rtrtartws 
fxov fyaerai. 

But the just shall live by 
faith in me. 

After this I will return and 
build again the tabernacle of 
David, which is fallen down ; 
and I will build up again the 
ruins thereof, and I will set 
it up : that the residue of men 
might seek after the Lord, and 
all the Gentiles upon whom 
my name is called, saith the 
Lord, who doeth all these 

Actsxxiii. 5." 

Apxovra rov Kotov crov ovk 
epeis KaKus. 

Thou shalt not speak evil 
of the ruler of thy people. 

Rom. i. 1 7. 

e O 8e StKatos tK martas 

The just shall live by faith. 

Isa. lii. 5. 

At* v/ias Sia travros to ovo - 
p.a fiov fiXaacpT] pter at tv rots 

On your account my name 
is continually reviled among 
the nations. 

Psal. li. 4. 

e 07rws au SlKCUCt)d7]S tV T 01$ 
Koyots crov, Kat vtK7ja7]S tv tco 
K ptvtadat at. 

So that thou mayest be jus- 
tified in thy sayings, and over- 
come when thou art judged. 

Gen. xv, 6. 

Kflti €7n<7Teucrev A€pap rta 
0ew, /cat tKoytadr) avroo tts 

And Abram believed God, 
and it was counted to him for 

Rom. ii. 24. 

To yap ovojua rov Otov St &Kacr<p7}fx<ELTai- tv rots tQ- 
vtat . 1 

For the name of God is 
blasphemed among the Gen- 
tiles through you. 

Rom. iii. 4. 

* Ovens av $ucaia>$7}s tv rots 
Xoyois aov , Kai vucrprris tv ro> 
Kptvtadat at. c * 

That thou mightest be jus- 
tified in thy sayings, and 
mightest overcome when thou 
art judged. 

Rom. iv. 3. 

E vtartvat St Aipaap ra 
Ota, /cat tKoytadr] avroo tts 
8 iKaiocrvvriv. 

And Abraham believed 
God, and it was counted to 
him for righteousness. 

71. Isa. lii. 5. 

: yuan 'ow avrrto T&m 

My name continually every 
day is blasphemed. 

72. Psal. li. 6. (4. of Eng- 

lish version.) 

: rein *pnn plan 

That thou mightest be jus- 
tified when thou speakest, and 
be clear when thou judgest. 

73. Gen. xv. 6. 

j rrp-rs m©rm mn»a pum 

And he believed in the 
Loan, and he counted it to 
him for righteousness. 

74. Psal. xiv. 1 — 3. 

mrp saitD-nra# 
urn nit-n 1 ? 

“id ten : tmterna ttm town 

Psal. xiv. 1 — 3. 

Ou/c tern •a rotav xp^aror^ra, 
ovk tartv teas tvos. K vptos tK 
rov ovpavov SttKv\f/tv tm rovs 

Rom. iii. 10 — 12. 

Ovk tan StKatos , ovSt tls. 
Ovk tarty 6 avvieav' ovk tarty 6 
tKpQrwv rov Qtov. Tlavrts 

1 In this quotation from the Septuagint, rov ®tov {of God), is substituted for pov {my) ; and 
the words €V rots t&veat {among the nations), are added to the Hebrew in the Septuagint. 
(Scott, Randolph.) 

s This is taken from the Septuagint, which agrees with the Hebrew. The Greek trans- 
lators render rrDin ( twkch ) thou mayest he clear or pure, by viKrjarjs, thou mayest overcome ; for, 
" to be clear in judgment,” or to be acquitted, is <f to overcome.” (Randolph,. Scott.) 

22 4 

Tables of Quotations from [Part I. Ch. 

vk sra-rms infos nro 
{ nn« oa 

There is none that doeth 
good. The Lord looked 
down from heaven upon the 
children of men; to see if 
there were any that did under- 
stand and seek God. They 
are all gone aside; they are 
all together become filthy: 
there is none that doeth good, 
no not one. 

75. Psal. v. 10. (9. of Eng- 

lish version.) 

pp**?rr oaiwb oru rone-nap 

Their throat is an open se- 
pulchre, they flatter with their 

76. Fsal. cxl. 4. (3. of Eng- 

lish version.) 

wnstt nnn aws* non 

Adders* poison is under 
their lips. 

77. Psal, x. 7. 

nmnoi iroD nfo 

His mouth is full of cursing 
and deceit. 

78. Isa. lix. 7, 8. 

‘•j&ttf? vina-i 1 st rfi crobn 

t omtona n nsn -»« ^ m 

i$T vh orw pi 

Their feet run to evil, and 
they make haste to shed inno- 
cent blood Wasting and 

destruction are in their paths. 
The way of peace they know 

uious rcov av6pcoTrcov } rov ideiv e i 
etrn crvvicov, 7) eKfyrcov rov 
Qeov. II avres e£eK\ivav, apa 
TjXpet&QriGw* ou/e eari i rotcov 
XpWTorrjra, ovk effrtv kcos 

There is none who doeth 
good : no, not one. The 
Lord looked down from hea- 
ven on the children of men, 
to see if any had understand- 
ing, or were seeking God. 
They had all gone aside, they 
were altogether become vile. 
There is none who doth good, 
no, not one. 

Psal. v. 9. 

T acpos avecoypevos 6 \apvy% 
avrcov rats yXcocrcrats avrcov 

Their throat is an open se- 
pulchre ; with their tongue 
they have practised deceit. 

Psal. cxxxix. 3. (cxl. 3. of 
English Bible.) 

Ios acnnScov vvro ra X el ^V 

The poison of asps is under 
their lips. 

Psal. x. 7. 

O u K apas to aropa avrov 
yepzt icat Twcpias. 

His mouth is full of cursing 
and bitterness. 

Isa. lix. 7, 8, 

Of 8 e woSes avrcov ewi 
irovTjptav rpexovcrL, raxwoi €/c- 
Xeeu alpLa — 'Zvvrptppa /cat ra- 
Xanrcopta ev rats 68 ois avrcov. 
K at 68 ov etp 7 jV 7 ]s ovk oi&ewn. 

Their feet run to evil, they 
are swift to shed blood. — 
Destruction and misery are in 
their ways, and the way of 
peace they do not know. 

€%€K\ipav f apa r)xpw 9 r) 0 ‘av‘ 
ovk earl ttoicov xP 7 J (rTor V ra > 
ovk ear iv Iws evoy. 1 

There is not one righteous • 
no, not one : there is none 
that understandeth, there is 
none that seeketh after God. 
They are all gone out of the 
way ; they are altogether be- 
come unprofitable ; there is 
none that doeth good ; no, 
not one. 

Rom. iii. 13. 

Ta<pos avecoy pevos & Aapiry| 
avrcov rats yXcoraats avrcov 

Their throat is an open se- 
pulchre ; with their tongues 
they have used deceit. 

Rom. iii. 13. 

Ios acfTrtbcov viro ra 

The poison of asps (a ve- 
nomous species of serpent) is 
under their lips. 

Rom. iii. 14. 

'fly to crropa apas Kai wik- 
pias yepet.- 

Whose mouth is full of 
cursing and bitterness. 

Rom. iii. 15-17. 

0£«s of -roSes avrcov eKxeai 
alp a. "Xvvrpippa Kat raKanrcu- 
pia ev rats ddois avrcov K at 
88ov €ipr}V7}s ovk cyvcstrav. 

Their feet are swift to shed 
blood. Destruction and mi- 
sery are in their ways ; and 
the way of peace they have not 

1 The former part of this quotation is an abridgment of the Septuagint, but agreeing in 
meaning with the Hebrew. It is rather an abridgment. The latter part is exactly from the 
Septuagint. The Hebrew word rendered in our version they are become jilthy 3 and which 
signifies to be loathsome or putrid , is in the Septuagint rendered r}%p€icotbi)<Tav, they are become 
pnprofitable. This the apostle retains. It is not so forcible as the Hebrew, but is sufficient 
fisfr has argument; and it caan’ot be supposed that many of -Christians at Rome had any 
other Scriptures except the Septuagin t. ( Scott. ) 

quotation agrees with the Septuagint, which also agrees with the Hebrew, excepting 
Greek translators have rendered mmn (mzrmuth;, deceit, by viKpias, bitterness. 

Randolph and Mr. Scott conjecture that they read nmo (mcrgroth). 


VI. Sect, I A 1.1 The Old Testament in the New . 

79. Psal. xxxvi. 2. (1. of 

English version.) 

i V2'» mb a'rrto* ina-pa 

There is no fear of God be- 
fore his eyes, 

80. Psal. xxxii. 1, 2. 


ps V? mrp ntt?n» DiN-ntJN 

Blessed is he ivhose trans- 
gression is forgiven, whose sin 
is covered. 

Blessed is the man unto 
whom the Lord impuleth not 

Psal. xxxv. 1. (xxxvi. 1. of 
English Bible.) 

0 vie effn (po§os ©ecu cwrep- 
avrt reap o<pBaXpo)v czutou. 

There is no fear of God be- 
fore his eyes. 

Psal. xxxii. 1, 2. 

Maxapioi &v acpeOrjcrav at 
avopuaLy kcu &v & rsicaAv(p 87 )(mv 
at apapriai. Vianapios av7]p 
& ov p.r\ Koyirr\raL K vpius 

Happy are they, whose ini- 
quities are forgiven, and whose 
sins are covered. Happy is 
the man, to whom (to whose 
account) the Lord will not 
impute (or charge) sin. 

Bom. iii, IS. 

Owe ecrn <j>o€os Beov mev- 
avTL rcov o<p6aXp.cov avrvy. 

There is no fear of God be- 
fore their eyes. 

Rom. iv. 7, S. 

M aitapioi atpeBijcav at 
avopiai, icai &v eireKaXv<p(h)crav 
al apLapriar M aicapios avrjp 
u ov fir} Xoyi(T7]Tai Kvpios 

Blessed are they, whose sins 
are forgiven, and whose ini- 
quities are covered. 

Blessed is the man to whom 
the Lord will not impute sin. 

81. Gen. xvii. 5. 

t I’nrn nna porr-aw 

A father of many nations 
have I made thee. 

82. Gen. xv. 5. 

: iTrp na 

So shall thy seed be. 

53. Psal. xliv. 22. 

laatjna m'rrta lamn 

: nma jnio 

For thy sake we are killed 
all the day long; we are 
counted as sheep for the 

54. Gen. xxi. 12. 

: jm "jb nv pns’i '3 • 

For, in Isaac, shall thy seed 
be called. 

85. Gen. xviii. 10. 

-nam rrn nss Tte ars?» nv 

nTO? p 

X will certainly return to 
thee according to the time of 
life ; and la, Sarah thy wife 
shall have a son. 

Gen. xv ri. 5. 

ITaTepa noA A(*v eBvuv re- 
deuca <re. 

I have made thee the father 
of many nations. 

Gen. xv. 5. 

Oitrus ecrrai to pTreppa aov. 

So shall thy seed be. 

Psal. xliv. 22. 

f Ort eveica (Tov va.Tovp.eda 
oAtjv ttjv ripepav‘ eXoyi(r 6 r]fisv 
ajs irpo§ara cr^ayris. 

For, for thy sake we are 
killed all the day long, and 
accounted as sheep for the 

Gen. xxi. 12. 

'On ev Iffaax KX'qdr}0‘erai 
Coi cnrepp a. 

For in Isaac shall thy seed 
be called. 

Gen. xviii. 10. 

ETsrava(TTp€<pwp f )£(*> rrpos ere 
Kara tov iccupov rovrov eis upas, 
kcll e|et viov %appa 7 ] yvvT} crov. 

I will return to thee about 
this time twelvemonth ; and 
Sarah, thy wife, shall have a 

Rom. iv. 17. 

Uarepa tetoX Aav eBvuv re- 
Beuca ere. 

A father of many nations 
have I made thee. 

Rom, iv. 18. 

Outgjs ecrai to enreppa ctov. 

So shall thy seed be. 

Rom. viii. 36. 

'On eveica Cov &avarovpeBa 
oArjv ryjv 7}fJLepav m eAoyicrdripey 
ws 'urpoSara crfpayrjs. 

For thy sake we are killed 
all the day long; 

We are accounted as sheep 
for the slaughter. 

Rom. ix 7. 

A A.V ev Icraati kA.7)Bv)crerat 
croi enreppa. 

But, in Isaac shall thy seed 
be called. 

Rom. ix. 9. 

Kara tov xaipov rovrov eAev- 
cropai, tta l ecrrai rrj ^SapfiavZos , 1 

At this time will I come, 
and Sara shall have a son. 

1 St. Paul here seems to have made use of some other translation, different from any we 
now have ; it agrees in sense both with the Septuagint and the Hebrew, The most remark- 
able difference from the Hebrew is, that TPH m is rendered Kara rov xaipov rovrov. Ihey 
seem to have read it mtr, as the same thing is expressed Gen. xvu.21. The Samaritan 
agrees with the Hebrew. The Vulgate, Syriac, and Arabic versions agree with the Septua- 
g?nt. However, the sense of the prophecy, both ways, is much the same, that Sarah should 
have a son at the time of life, or at the return of time next year. (Dr. Randolph on the 
Quotations, p. 36.) 



[Part I. Ch. 

Tables of Quotations from 

56, Gen. xxv. 23. 

srrr ■’i?' ni 

The elder shall serve the 

Gen. xxv. 23. 

Kan o fietfev dovXevcet rai 

And the elder shall serve 
the younger. 

Rom. ix. 12. 

f O fieifap BovXevGet tco eXa <r- 


The elder shall serve the 

87. Hal.i.2, 3. 

•>crr * r.N' 1 : ; zpT' rs* 


I loved Jacob, and I hated 

Ma 1. i. 2, 3. 

Kai 7}ycnr7)G-a top lasc(c€, top 
KCU H (TaV €f UGTJGa. 

Yet I loved Jacob, and 
hated Esau, 

Rom. ix. 13, 

Toy IcucaS 7)ycnrr,(ra, top Be 
Hcav e,uiG7]c a. 

Jacob have I loved, but 
Esau have I hated. 

SS. Exod. xxxiii. 19. 
•nsm' ioton ’n:m 
i cm a Tcs-n» 
I will be gracious to whom 
I will be gracious, and I will 
show mercy on whom I will 
show mercy. 

89. Exod. ix. 3 6. 

"pTOH nN 1 ! ‘lisra 

]r?37i wpn ^nn'irr Y!2?3 
j 'oo 

For this cause have I raised 
thee up, for to show in thee 
my power, and that my name 
may be declared throughout 
all the earth. 

90. Hos, ii. 25. 

V:-"on' rrsm ’r,*2r**n 

rrn.srrr ’rs-a ;V 

I will have mercy upon her 
that had not obtained mercy, 
and I will say to them which 
were not ray people, Thou ait 
my people. 

Exod. xxxiii. 19. 

Kcu €X€7}(T(i } op av eXeai, nat 
oiKTeipT]ffu op av outreipa,. 

I will have mercy on w hom 
I please to have mercy ; and 
I will have compassion on 
whomsoever I compassionate. 

Exod. ix. IS. 

Kcu eveizev t ovtov Gierijp;/- 
fbjs, Iva evBetgujitai ev ecu ttj v 
lctxvv fiov, KaL virus BiayyeXi) 
to ovofia fiov ev Tract] ttj 777. 

But thou hast been pre- 
served for this purpose, that 
by thee I might display my 
power, and that my name may 
be celebrated throughout all 
the earth. 

Hos. ii. 23. 

flcu ayzrr/jcrcc tt\p owe T\ya- 
‘vryy.eprp, azi epu ru ov Xau 
jtiov, Aa.cs f.iov et go. 

And I will leva her who 
was not beloved ; and to them 
who were not my people, I 
will say, Then art my people. 

Rom ix. 15. 

EAeTjffce <5v av eXeu, jeat 
oiizretpijcu op av oucreipa j. 

I will have mercy on whom 
I will have mercy, and I will 
have compassion on whom I 
will have compassion. 

Rom. ix. 17, 

Ecs cuto rouTo ei-Tjyeipa ce s 
6irus evdeitu/isu ev gol tt ]p 3u- 
vapnv f&ov, Kai virus BtayyeX7j 
to ovofia fiov ev TsracTj rr] 777. 

For this same purpose have 
I raised thee up, that I might 
show my power in thee, and 
that ray name might be de- 
clared throughout all the earth. 

Rom. ix. 25. 

KaAeccu top ov Xa ov fiov , 
Xaov juov Kai ttjV owe 7773^77- 
£j.evi]v, T}yuirr}fievriv. 

I will call them my people, 
which were not my people ; 
and her.beloved which was not 

91. Hos, ii. l, (i. 10 . of 
English version.) 

Sir? iqn’-tcn rrrri 
”2. arrt un« ’sx’-n 1 ? 

: ’rr 5 ?** 

And it shall come to pass, 
that in the place where it was 
said unto them, ye arc not my 
people, there it shall be said 
unto them, ye are the soars of 
the living God. 

Hos. i. 10. 

Kou e&rai, ev ru tot rw, 06 
€pf>7]6r] carrois, Ov Kaos fiov 
iifieis, KXi}6i]G0VTai kcu carrot 
viot Oeov gavTos. 

But it shall come to pass 
that, in the place where it was 
sa ; d , il Ye are not my people,” 
they shal 1 be called children of 
the living God. 

Rom. ix. 26. 

Kcu etfreu, ev tqs tottu ou 
*pp7}87] avTois, Ov Xaos fiov 
vfieis, etcet KA77 6770-0 vrat vioi 
Oeov £uvtos. 

And it shall come to pass, 
that in the place where it 
was said unto them. Ye are not 
my people : there shall they 
be called the children of the 
living Gcd. 

Isa. x. 22, 23 

nr’ rrrr 

Isa. x. 22, 23. 

Kat eav 7€V73Ta 1 6 Xaos Icr- 

, p jfvfijtai u /\aas IG- 

27* nsSHAaavvs, u^ us r VS <raw- 

f rrrr mn rai. Aoyov GwreXuv mt cvv- Aoyov yap uvvreXuv /cat cvv- 

' ^•‘1^77 ^73 Tefivm ev Bitcaiocywi} • oti Xoyov refivuv ev BtKatoGvvr}; art Xoyov 

GwreTfiTifievov Kvpios tzroiTjcei GvvT 6 T/i 7 ]fievop Tsrotrjaet K vptos 
tt? oiKQVfiepr] 5 At?. €Wt T7]s y7 j Sm 1 

Rom. ix. 27, 28. 

Eav 7] 6 apt&fios rcop vicov, 
lcpar)X us 7} afifios ttjs fra\aG- 

VI. Sect. I. $ 1.] The Old Testament in the New. 


For though thy people Israel 
be as the sand of the sea, yet 
a remnant of them shall re. 
turn : the consumption de- 
creed shall overflow with right- 
eousness. For the Loud God 
of Hosts shall make a con- 
sumption, even determined in 
the midst of all the land. 

93. Isa. i. 9. 

i:b 'vmrr mwis mrp 'rf} 
dies rraa tto 

Except the Loan of Hosts 
had left us a very small rem- 
nant, we should have been as 
Sodom, and we should have 
been like unto Gomorrah. 

94. Isa. via. 14. 

risas Tis'n tp 

He shall be for a stone 

of stumbling, and a rock of 
offence to both the houses of 

95. Isa. xxviii. 16. 
pi pa pw p'L'n ic' '::n 
]'D«arr idiq icin nip' n:a 

Behold I lay in Zion for a 
foundation a stone, a tried 
stone, a precious corner-stone, 
a sure foundation : he that be- 
lieveth shall not make haste. 
(Be confounded, Bp. Loii'th .) 

Though the people of Israel 
be as the sand of the sea, a 
remnant of them shall be saved. 
He is dosing an account, and 
making a deduction with sav- 
ing goodness. Because with 
the whole land the Lord will 
make a reckoning from which 
a deduction hath been made. 

Isa. i. 9 

Kcu ei py K vptos IzaSacod ey- 
icare A ittgu r>piv ffirepp a, &s 2o- 
Bopa clp eyeyqQ't)fjL6v s Kai &s 
ro ( uoppa clv &poi(nBripGv. 

Had not the Lord of Hosts 
left us a seed, we should have 
been as Sodom, and made like 

Isa. viii. 14. 

K ai ovx is AiBov ‘zapocrKop- 
part GvvavTGO‘e<r6G i ovSe ttg- 
rpas TcrapaTt. 

And ye shall not run against 
a stumbling stone, nor as un- 
der a falling rock. 

Isa. xxviii. 16. 

ISou, cycc GpSaAAio gls ra 
SeptAia 'Siwv A&ov ttoAvtgAtj, 
gkAgktov, aKpoycaviaiov, gvti- 
pov } eis ra 3 -epsAia avrTjs, Kai 
6 ttuttguoiv on pr) icaraiGXvpOr}. 

Behold, T lay for the found- 
ation of Sion a stone of ines- 
timable worth — a chosen pre- 
cious corner - stone for the 
foundations of it : and he who 
believeth shall not be ashamed. 

Though the number of the 
children of Israel be as the 
sand of- the sea, a remnant 
shall be saved : for he will 
finish the work, and cut it 
short in righteousness : be- 
cause a short work will the 
Lord make upon the earth. 

Bom. ix. 29. 

Ei pr) K vptos 3 aSaud eyicare- 
Aiirev 7)piy tnreppa, 2bo$opa 
ay €y€p7}97}pey, Kai us Topoppa 
aV &U0L(ad7}p€V. 

Except the Lord of Sabaoth 
had left us a seed, we had been 
as Sodoma, and been made like 
unto Gomorrha. 

Rom. is. S3. 

l5ou, TiQjjpi Gy ’Stay AiBoy 
TrpoGKoaparos, Kai irerpay gkolv- 
SaAow Kai was & ttkxtgvqiv ew* 
avTW ov Karatcrx^rjGGrau 1 

Behold I lay in Sion a 
stumbling stone, and rock of 
offence; and whosoever be- 
lieve; h on him shall not be 

See also Rom. x. 11., and 
1 Pet. ii. 6, 7. 

prophet foretells a great destruction of the children of Israel, but not a total one ; a remnant 
should return and he saved : the apostle very aptly applies this to the times of the Gospel, when 
some few of the Jews believed, and were saved, and a signal destruction came upon the rest. 
It is worthy of observation, that the expressions here in Isaiah are the same as we find in 
Dan. ix. where the destruction of Jerusalem is foretold. See this prophecy and the appli- 
cation of it well explained by Bishop Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies, vol. ii. p. 56. 
(Dr. Randolph on the Quotations, p. 36.) 

1 The quotation in Rom. ix. 33. is taken from two places in the prophecy of Isaiah, St. 
Paul, in order to prove that the Jews in general should be cast off, and only those among 
them who believed should be saved, refers to two passages in the prophet Isaiah, of which he 
quotes such parts as were sufficient to prove his point. The first citation agrees with the 
Hebrew. The Septuagint (as will be seen in a subsequent page) differs widely. The other 
citation agrees nearly with the Septuagint ; it differs from the Hebrew" only in reading witli 
the Septuagint KaTato'xvy^fjtrGTai t shall he ashamed, which is also the reading of the Arabic 
version. They seem to have read in the original ■ffl'a' itoeish) instead of s:’rp ykchisu). 
(Dr. Randolph on Quotations, p. 36.) The Quotation in Rom. x. 13. agrees with the latter 
clause of Isa. xxviii. 16. with the whole of which also agrees the quotation in 1 Pet. ii. 6. 

e 2 


Tables of Quotations from [Part I. Ch. 

96. Lev. xviii. 5. 

’m Sian cn« nw' 'lwS 


Judgments which if a 

man do, he shall live in them. 

97. Deut. xxx. 12 — 14. 

lax? .sirr Q'ntta 

vb rrnp'i na'ccrr isrrrto' 
-N'n : n3ttjf3i rrns isyown 
»d ‘ion? win D' 1 ? naro 
i : i nnpri a»n H2 t?n 12*2 
t n:e3?3i twn 
^ratoi “['si inq lain 


It is not in heaven, that 
thou shouldest say, "Who shall 
go up for us to heaven, and 
bring it unto us, that we may 
hear it and do it? Neither is 
it beyond the sea, that thou 
shouldest say, Who shall go 
over the sea for us, that we 
may hear it and do it? But 
the word is very nigh unto 
thee, in thy mouth and in thy 

98. Isa. lii. 7. 
imo 'ton D'nnrr^N narno 
{ 3RD ‘VOID Dl^tJ 2f'Q©0 

How beautiful upon the 
mountains are the feet of him 
that bringeth good tidings, 
that publisheth peace ; that 
bringeth good tidings of good! 

99. Psal. xix. 5. (4, of 
English version.) 
ton nspai Dip S3 1 * fwrton 

Lev. xviii. 5. 

*A iroiTjcras aura upSpurros, 
fatrerai ev aurois. 

Which, if a man do, he shall 
live thereby. 

Deut. xxx. 12 — 14. 

Ovk sp ra ovpava a’va ecrn, 
Aeyap, T ls avairjfrerat tijj.iv eis 
top ovpavov , tcai Arj^erai vjpuv 
avr 7]U ; kcu c ifcovcravres gvttjp 
TroiTi&ofiw ; OuSe irepetv ttjs &a - 
Aaffcnjs eerrt, Aeyuv, Tis Siawe- 
pacrsi tjjup ets to 7r epav ttjs 
SraXacnrys, icai Xa$T) rijJ.iv avrrjp, 
kcu axov(TTr,v fjpup rzroiTjffT) av- 
T7jv, teat iroirjcrojjsv ; F.yyvs crov 
SCTTl TO pTIJIG (UpoSpa ev TO 
(TTOJlUTl C OU, /cat SV TTJ Kapdicc 
crov, kcu ev Tats x e P crL ffov 
iroteiv avTO. 

It is not in heaven above, 
that thou shouldest say, Who 
will ascend for us into heaven, 
and bring it to us, that we 
may hear and do it ? Nor is 
it beyond the sea, that thou 
shouldest say, Who will cross 
the sea for us, and bring it to 
us, and let us hear it, and we 
will do it ? The word is very 
near thee, in thy mouth and in 
thy heart, and in thy hand. 

Isa. lii. 7. 

'Hs apa 67TJ tuv opeav, OJS 
wofies svay') eXi^ojLevov afeorju 
ctpnvTfs, us evayyeXi r £ojj.evos 

Like beauty on the moun- 
tains, — like the feet of one 
proclaiming peace, like one 
proclaiming glad tidings. 

Psal. xix. 4. 

Exs rracrav ttjv yrjv efyAdev 
6 <p6ayyos avrav, /cat eis ra 
TTGpara T7JS OLKOVJJLeVTJS to. /5tj- 
jjwra avrav. 

Rom. x. 0 . 

'O 'CTonjcras avra avOpcairos 

fatjeTCLL €V aVTOLS. 

The man which doeth those 
things shall live by them. 

Rom. x. 6 — S. 

M 77 enryjs ev ttj icapSta o'ov 
Tts ava^ceraL sis top ovpavov; 
(tout’ ecfn , Xpicrrov icaraya- 
yetv) H, ns KaragijcreraL eis 
rr\ vaSvccrov; (tout’ ecri Xpt- 

errov e k veitpuv avciyaysiv ) 

E77US crou to faiia eernv, ev ra 
ero/uari crou, uai ev t-jj icapdia 
crov . 1 

Say not in thine heart, Who 
shall ascend into heaven ? 
(that is, to bring down Christ 
from above.') Or, who shall 
descend into the deep ? (that 
is, to bring up Christ again 
from the dead. . The word 
is nigh thee, even in thy mouth 
and in thy heart. 

Rom. x. 15. 

c Xls apcuoi ol 7 roSes rap evay- 
7 eXi£ojj.evav eiprjPTjv, tuv evay- 
yeXi^opevuv ra ayagra. 

How beautiful are the feet 
of them that preach the Gos- 
pel of Peace, and bring glad 
tidings of good things ! 

Rom. x. IS. 

E/s Traffav ttjp yqv etyA&ev 
6 cpQoyyos avrap, icai sis ra 
nrepara. rrjs oikovjjlsptjs ra p7j- 
jiara avrap. 2 

1 The apostle here, with some little alteration, accommodates what Moses says in the book 
of Deuteronomy to his present purpose : Moses there, speaking of the covenant made with 
the children of Israel, expresses the easiness of that covenant by proverbial phrases taken 
from the transactions of God with the children of Israel : Who (says he) shall go up for ns 
mtt> Heaven, $c. alluding to the delivery of the law from Heaven — Who shall go over the 
sea for tis, $c. alluding to the passage of the Israelites over the Red Sea : St, Paul makes use 
of the like phrases, only altering the latter so as to allude to the descent of Christ into the 
grave ; This is a most beautiful allusion ; and the latter part, in which the main stress of the 
argument lies, agrees both with the Septuagint and with the Hebrew, omitting only a word 
two. . (Dr. Randolph on the Quotations, p. 37.) 

a This quotation agrees verbatim with the Septuagint ; and it agrees with the Hebrew, 
excepting that instead of Dip (qum), a line or direction, both the apostle and the Septuagint 


VI. Sect. L § 1 .] The Old Testament in the New. 

Their lino (more correctly, 
sound) is gone out through all 
the earth, aurl their words to 
the end of the world. 

100. Deut. xxxii. 21 . 

I will move them to jea- 
lousy with those which are not 
a people ; I will provoke them 
to anger by a foolish nation. 

101. Isa, Ixv. 1, 2. 

''s: nV?? ’rvcn: 

"73 \TCTi2 MT7 

-ire avrr 

I am sought of ihem that 
asked not for me ; I am found 
of them that sought me not. 

1 have spread out ray 

hands all the day long unto a 
rebellious people. 

102. 1 Kings six. 14. 

-pwaaTiNi iDirr ‘■pnrrrra-nN 
m 1 ? nmNi aim inn 
s nnnp 1 ? 'csstiw iepm 

The children of Israel have 
...... thrown down thine altars, 

and slain thy prophets with the 
sword : and I even I only am 
left: and they seek my life 
to take it away. 

103. 1 Kings xix. IS. 

D'Bba nns) i.s'Tcm ’msem 
to? mra? tsjm Erminto 

I have left me seven thou- 

sand in Israel, all the knees 

which have not bowed unto 

Baal, and every mouth which 

hath not kissed him. 

To every land their sound 
is gone forth, and their doc- 
trines to the limits of the 

Deut, xxxii. 21. 

Kayw vrapaZflXtudot avrovs 
eir' ovk eBpei, eiri e0pst advperw 
irapopyiu avrovs. 

I will provoke them by what 
is not a nation. 

By a foolish nation will I 
vex them. 

Their sound went into all 
the earth, and their words unto 
the ends of the world. 

Rom. x, 19. 

Eya: 'arapafaXudco vpas ear* 
ovk edvep em effpet aervperv 
ttapopyua upas. 

I will provoke you to jea- 
lousy by them that are no 
people, and by a foolish na- 
tion will I anger you. 

Isa. Ixv. 1, 2. 

Ep<pavr}s eyep7)&7]v rots eue 
prj eirepcorudiv, evpeBijp rois 
epe per] ?rjrovdip — E|€7reTacra 
ras X €l P a s ^ oy oAtjv Tijy ypepap 
irpos Xaop aveiBoupra kcu av - 

I became manifest to them 
who inquired not for me; I 
was found by them who sought 

me not. I stretched out 

my hands all the day long to 
a disobedient and gainsaying 

1 Kings xix. 14. 

Ta &vaLa(rrripLii aov Ka^ei- 
Xav 3 kcu rovs 'Ss-pocp7]Tas aov arr - 
GKTeLj/av ev pop$aia‘ kcu u - aro - 
XeXeippcu eyco popuraros, Kai 
I ' rjrovcTL ttjp P ov XaSeiP 

CtVTT) v. 

They have demolished thy 
altars, and slain thy prophets 
with the sword ; and I only 
am left, and they seek my life 
to take it. 

1 Kings xix. 18. 

Kcu KaraXettyeis ev TdpayX 
eirra xi\ia5a$ apSpwp, iravra 
yovara a ovk uKXadap y ovv rco 

And thou shalt leave in Is- 
rael seven thousand men, even 
all the knees which have not 
bowed to Baal. 

Rom. x. 20, 21. 

E vpeBqp rots epe pn Ptjtov- 
dtp, eptpavijs eyevQiLLiiv rots eu.€ 

prj ewepiorwdi 'OXijp rijp 

ypepap egeireraaa ras x ei P as 
pov irpos Xaop aireiBovpra koli 

I was found of them that 
sought me not ; I was made 
manifest unto them that asked 
not after me. ■ All daylong 
I have stretched forth my hands 
unto a disobedient and gain- 
saying people. 

Rom. xi. 3. 

Kupiej tovs ’Wpo<p7]Tas dov 
aTrcKTeivaV) kcu ra &vdiadTifpia 
dov KaredKatyay Kay ta vireXei- 
(pSyp papas, Kai fyrovdt ryv 
ipvxVP pov . 1 * 

Lord, they have killed thy 
prophets, and digged down 
thine altars; and I am left 
alone, and they seek my life. 

Rom. xi. 4. 

KareXnrov epavrw £ttoki<t- 
XiXiavs apdpas, o tripes ovk 
eKapipap yopv T7j BaaA. 

I have reserved to myself 
seven thousand men who have 
not bowed the knee to the 
image of Baal, 

translators seem to have read E^l]? (qulcm), (pdoyyos, a sounds Which last is doubtless the 
true reading, as it agrees best with the context, and is supported by the Chaldee Paraphrase, 
the Syriac, Arabic, and Vulgate Latin Versions, and by Jerome. Symmachus, in his Gnsck 
translation, renders the Hebrew bv WX 0S 9 sound . (Dr. Randolph on the Quotations, p. 3*.) 
Prof. N. M, Berlin, Psalrai, ex* Recensione Textus Hebraci et Versionum Antiquarum, 
La tine Versi, p. 31. (Upsalise, 1805.) 

1 This quotation agrees in sense both with the Septuagint and the Hebrew, but seems to be 
taken from a different translation. The words of the original are transposed, and somewhat 
abridged. (Dr. Randolph.) , 

e s 


[Part I. Ch. 

Tables of Quotations from 

304. Isa. xxix 10. (and see 
Isa. vi. 9. Ezek. xii. 2. ) 
rm mir “jnr'2 

cawriN dsj'i rrcnn 

The Lord hath poured out 
upon you the spirit of deep 
sleep, and hath closed your 

105. Psal. Ixix. 23, 24. (22, 
23. of English version.) 

Dmsb a:rrce-'n* 
naatsnn ; tcp^ 

Tan orranoi main nna^r 
.* n s nrr 

Let their table become a 
snare before them: and that 
which should have been for their 
welfare, let it become a trap. 
Let their eyes be darkened 
that they see not ; and make 
their loins continually to 

100. Isa. lix. 20, 21. (and 
see Isa. xxvii. 9.) 

9SE ’isfn 

riMi iron' cm: 

Drm wi 

And the Redeemer shall 
come to Sion, and unto them 
that turn from transgression, 
saith the Lord. As for me, 
this is my covenant with them, 
saith the Loro. 

107. Deut, xxxii. 35. 

tarei Dp: 'b 

To me belongetk vengeance 
and recompence. 

Isa. xxix. 10. (and see Isa. 
vi. 9. Ezek, xii. 2.) 

'Oti werortKsv v/x as Kupios 
rpev/xan Karapv^ecos, kgu kci/jl - 
fjL vcrsi rovs otydak/uous avrcop. 

For the Lord hath drenched 
you with the spirit of stupe- 
faction, and will close up the 
eyes of them. 

Isa. lix. 20, 21. (and see Isa. 
xxvii. 9.) 

'H£ei spskcp 'S.lcop 6 pvofxsvos, 
Kai arocrrpeif/ei a cregecas otto 
la/cwg. Koi avTTj avrois 'h rap* 
ejxov Sia^nrjKT], 

For the sake of Sion, the 
Deliverer will come, and turn 
away ungodliness from Jacob. 
And this shall be my covenant 
with them. 

Deut. xxxii, 35. 

E v TjfAepa €k 5 iktjo"€ cos apra- 

3 a the day of vengeance I 
will requite. 

Rom. xi. 8. 

ESftfKev airrois o 0eo$ irpeu- 
/xa Karapv^cos, o<j)6aAy.ovs r ov 
fjLf] fikersLp, Kai (ora rov jx7} 
atcoveip . 1 

God hath given them the 
spirit of slumber, eyes that 
they should not see, and ears 
that they should not hear. 

Rom. xi. 26, 27. 

'H£ei sic Shop 6 pvo/xevos , Kai 
aroer peipsi acre gem v airola/cwg. 
Kai avT7] avrois 7] wap* spov 
?>La&r)KT}, orav acpskoopat ras 
afiaprias avrap.* 

And the Redeemer shall 
come to Sion, and unto them 
that turn from transgression, 
saith the Lord. As for me, 
this is my covenant with them 
saith the Lord. 

Rom. xii. 1 9. (and see Heb. 
x. SO.) 

E fxoi eKbucTja'LS' syu avra- 
Troboxrto, Asysi K vpios. 

Vengeance is mine (literally 
to me belongoth vengeance) * 
I will repay, saith the Lord. 

Psal. Ixix. 22, 23. 

Tep-ri&rirco tj rpars^a avr cop 
epconop avrcop sis wrayida, Kai 
sis apraruSoacp , Kai sis crKap - 
Sakop. ’SKOTicrS'ijTcocrap ot o<p- 
frakjxoi avrcop rov pi j fiksrsip, 
Kairov pccrov avrcop dia rapros 

Let their table before them 
become a snare, and a recom- 
pence, and a stumbling block. 
Let their eyes be darkened, 
that they may not see, and bow 
down their neck continually. 

Rom. xi. 9, 10. 

rep7]&7]Tco 7) rpare'ga avrcop 
eis rayiba, Kai sis Srqpav, Kai 
sis cicapSakov, Kat sis apraro ■■ 
dopa avrois. ^Koncr^Tjrcoaap 
ol oQ&akjxot avrcop rov py y8 Ae- 
reip , Kai rop pcorop avrcop dia 
ravros cruyKaptyop. 

Let their table be made a 
snare and a trap, and a stum- 
bling block, and a recompence 
unto them. Let their eyes be 
darkened that they may not 
see, and bow down their back 

lie firat par t of this quotation agrees with the Hebrew, only altering the person them for 
you. The latter part seems to refer to.some other Scripture, either Isa. vi. 9. or Ezek • 
san ' ,ethln .g 1S n ia,<i ; ( Dr - Randolph on tl;o Quotations, p. 37.) ‘ ’ 

* This quotation is taken from the Septuagint, escept only that the apostle reads e* instead 
Si”. l eTb ? S th f 'oPy otthe Septuagint which he used had it so/or possibly the teS of 

VL Sect. I. § 1.] The Old Testament in the Ne>w. 


108. Prov. xxv. 23, 22. 
cn'7 inborn *]»:« a»rD« 
B'biTl '3 \ Q’O inpOT NES-EM1 

lflxvw rrnn rm» 

If thine enemy be hungry, 
give him bread to cat ; and if 
he be thirsty, give him water 
to drink ; For thou shaltheap 
coals of fire upon his head. 

109. Isa. xlv. 23. 

n:n rrpia 'ee 'nnt)] 

"111-73 '7-’3 lit)' X71 

] verb 3 riEn 

I have sworn by myself; 
the word is gone out of my 
mouth in righteousness, and 
shall not return, that unto me 
every knee shall bow, every 
tongue shall swear* 

110. Psal. lxix. 10. (9. of 
English version.) 

'12 ibs: “pmn maim 

The reproaches of them that 
reproached thee, are fallen on 

111. Psal. xviii. 50. (49. of 

English version.) 

-probi msr av3i -|yin p-b» 
j mow 

Therefore will I give thanks 
unto thee, O Lord, among the 
heathen, and sing praises unto 
thy name. 

Prov. xxv: 21, 22. 

Eay rtsiva 6 exOpos gov, \p u>- 
pi£e avrov • eav fitif/a, ironfe 
avT ov' T ovro yap iroicov av~ 
dpaicas Trvpos era'peucreis em ryv 
Kstpa An]v ctvrov. 

If thine enemy hunger, feed 
him ; if he be thirsty, give him 
drink ; for by doing thus, thou 
wilt heap coals of fire upon his 

La. xlv, 23. 

Kcct’ epavrov opvvco, si pi) 
egehevGerat. stz too Gropuros 
[xov 5,KaioGvvi), ot Aoyoi pov 


Kaposi nav *) ovv, nai opsirai 
iraaa yA&GGa rov ©sou. 

By myself I swear .right- 
eousness shall proceed from 
my mouth ; my words shall 
not be leversed), that to me 
every knee shall bow, and 
every tongue shall swear with 
respect to God. 

Psal. lxix. 9. 

Ot ovstbiGpoi rau ovslBi^ovtwv 
<re stcsgsgov sir sps. 

On me have fallen the re- 
proaches of them that re- 
proached thee. 

Psal, xviii. 49. 

Aia rovro egopoAoyrjGopai 
Got cv sOvsgi, Kvpis, /cat rca ovo- 
pan aov if/aAa. 

For this cause I will praise 
thee, O Lord, among the na- 
tions ; and sing melodiously 
unto tby name. 

Rom. xii. 20. 

Eav ovv i reiva b ex&pos Gov r 
tyapigs avrov sav 5nj/a, ironfre 
avrov rovro yap •gjolqiv uv- 
Bpatcas n rvpos GcopevGsts sn 
rr]v Ks(pa\r\v avrov. 

Therefore, if thine enemy 
hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, 
give him drink ; for in so 
doing, thou shalt heap coals 
of fire on his head. 

Rom. xiv. 11. 

Z ca eyw, Asysi Kvpios, &rt 
spot Kaposi Tsrav y ovv, /cat -nra- 
ca yXeaGGa e|ojUoAo77?ereTai rw 
©ew. 1 

As I live, saith the Lord, 
every knee shall bow to me, 
and every tongue shall confess 
to God. 

Rom. xv. S. 

O l oveibiGpoi rcav oveitiifav- 
roav gs eirer-eGov ex’ eps. 

The reproaches of them that 
reproached thee, fell on me. 

Rom. xv. 9. 

Ata rovro st-opoAoyvjGopai 
Got sv e^eert, «at rca ovopan 
gov ipaAeo. 

For this cause will I con- 
fess to thee among the Gen- 
tiles, and sing unto thy name. 

Rom. xv. 10. 

Evcppavdrire eQir} pera rov 
Aaov avrov. 2 

112. Deut, xxxii. 42. (43. of 
English version.) 
ies ana lva-tn 

Deut. xxxii, 43. 

Ev(ppav07]rs edvT} psra rov 
Aaov avrov. 

1 This does not exactly agree either with the Septuagint or with the Hebrew. Instead of 
KaT* spavrov opvvca, By myself I swear, the apostle gives us an equivalent expression often, 
used in Scripture, Z <a ey w, As I live. The rest of the citation agrees exactly with the Alex- 
andrine copy of the Septuagint, which translates rawn by e£opoAoysirai, shall confess . 'Die 
Vatican translates it more literally, — opsirai, shall swear ; but both of them agree in joining 
rfltl’3, in the following verse, with ptub, in this, leaving out "JN and '’b? — and to this the Arabic 
version agrees. (Dr. Randolph on the Quotations, p. 38.) 

2 This is an exact quotation from the Septuagint. The clause which we have given occurs 
in the middle of the verse ; which some writers not having observed, they have supposed that 
the Septuagint is not quoted. The preceding words of this verse in the Septuagint, 

Ev(ppav&7}re avpavoi apa avreo, 

Kai 7 TpoGicvv 7 }GarccGav avroi iravrss ayysAoi ©eow. 

Rejoice, O heavens, with him, 

And let all the angels of God worship him — 

are not in the Hebrew; and the clause, quoted from the Septuagint, evidently gives the 

S * 

Tables of Quotations from 


Rejoice, O ye nations, with 
his people. 

113. Psal. cxvii. 1. 

rat: nirto mrpTi** ibbn 

Praise the Lord all ye na- 
tions : praise him all ye peo- 

114. Isa, xi. 10. 

»«’ tyro i-onn eva frm 
tanj V7« D’nr D3*“? 1Q5? 


And in that day there shall 
be a root of Jesse, which shall 
be for an ensign of the people; 
to it shall the Gentiles seek. 

Rejoice, O nations, with his 

Psal. cxvii. !. 

Aivene rov Kupiov Travra ra 
eOvti, eiratvecare avrov ttuptss 
oi Aaoi. 

Praise the Lord, all ye na- 

Praise him, all ye peoples. 

Isa. xi. 10. 

Eorat eu ry Tj/uepa efceiuvj v 
ptga tov leccat, teat 6 avtcra- 
juevos apx elv eSrav, eir* avrea 
€&V7) ebiriovcL, 

There shall be in that day 
the root of Jesse, even he who 
riseth up to rule nations ; in 
him nations will put their 

315. Isa lii. 15. 

W Gfi 5 ? -VOH ^ 

i laaiann wwi 

That, which had not been 
told them, shall they see, and 
that which they had not heard, 
shall they consider. 

116. Isa. xxix. 14. 

raui vesn noan rrnxi 
j mnen vaaa 

The wisdom of their wise 
men shall perish, and the un- 
derstanding of their prudent 
men shall be hid. 

117, Isa. lxiv. 3. (4. of 
English version.) 

wiwrr vb iSfitrKb 
-jnbri nn»VN7 p 


For since the beginning of 
the world, men have not heard 
nor perceived by the ear, nei- 
ther hath the eye seen, O God, 
besides thee, what he hath pre- 
pared for him that waiteth for 

Isa. lii. 15. 

e O*ri ots ovk. avr)yye\ 7 ] wept 
avrov , o-^ovrai, kcu oi ov a clkt}- 
kqolci, o-w7j(rouort. 

Because they, to whom no 
publication was made con- 
cerning him, shall see ; and 
they, who had not heard, will 

Isa. xxix. 14. 

cvvercay Kpvilu). 

And I will destroy the wis- 
dom of the wise, and will hide 
the understanding of the pru- 

Isa. lxiv. 4. 

Aro tov atwyos ovit r,!covca- 
juer, ou&e oi ocpdaXfiot rjpt cay 
ciSov ©eov, 'crXrjv cov , /cat ra 
epya cov, a 7romceis rois u'sro- 
lisvovciv eA eov. 

Never have we heard, nor 
have our eyes seen a God, be- 
sides thee, nor works such as 
thine, which thou wilt do for 
them who wait for mercy. 

[Part I. Ch. 

Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with 
his people. 

Rom. xv. 1 1. 

A were rov Kupiov ttclvtcl Ta 
cBvtj, /l'a i eTraiyecrare avrov 
•zsrapres oi \aot. 

Praise the Lord, all ye Gen- 
tiles ; and laud him, all ye 

Rom. xv. 12. 

Etrmt 7} pi£a too leccat, tcctt. 
5 ayicra/xevos apx*w c&vuv, 
eir* avreo &vt) e Amove tv. 

There shall be a root of 
Jesse, and he that shall rise to 
reign over the Gentiles; in 
him shall the Gentiles trust. 

Rom. xv. 21. 

OiS ovk avrjyyeXrj 'tcept av~ 
rov , oipovrai, icai oi ovk atcri- 
KoacTL, cvvrjcovct. 

To whom he was not spoken 
of, they shall see; and they 
that have not heard shall un- 

1 Cor. i. 19. 

AttoAco tt]V corpiav rcov Co- 
<pccv, teat T7]V Cvveciv reap cv- 
yerwv a&GTycco. 

I will destroy the wisdom 
of the wise, and will bring to 
nothing the understanding of 
the prudent. 

1 Cor. ii. 9. 

'A 0 <pdaX(jL 0 S ovk ex5e, Kat 
ovs ovk 7 jKovce, Kat €7 rt icapihav 
avdpeoTrov ovk ayeSr}, a 'qeotiia- 
cev d 06 os rots ayancvciv au- 
tov. 1 

Eye hath not seen, nor ear 
heard, nor have entered into 
the heart of man, the things 
which God hath prepared for 
them that love him. 

genuine meaning of the Hebrew, though, in the abrupt language of poetry, the preposition 
signifying with is omitted. (Scott.) 

1 This is a most difficult passage : It does not agree either with the Hebrew, or the Sep- 
tuagint, or any other translation now extant : nor is it possible either to make sense of the 
Hebrew, or to reconcile the old versions, either with the Hebrew or with one another. In the 
apostle's citation the sense is easy and consistent, and agreeable to the context in the prophet. 
No sense can be made of the Hebrew, but by a very forced construction. Some critics have 
imagined that the quotation was taken from some apocryphal book : but it is so near to the 
Hebrew here, both in sense and words, that we cannot suppose it to be taken from any other 
passage. Nor in Ihib case would the apostle (it is presumed) have introduced it with — as it 

VI. Sect. I. § 1.] The Old Testament in the Neva. . 233 


Isa. xl. 13. 

tj'Mi mrr nvrn» pmn 
: wtv unsr 

Who hath directed the spirit 
of the Lord, or being his coun- 
sellor, hath taught him ? 

Isa. xl. 13. 

T is syvco vow Kvpiov ; Kai 
t is avrov rvpiSovXos syevero, 
6s (rvfi§i€a clutov 

Who hath known the mind 
of the Lord? and who hath 
been of his counsel to teach 

119. Job v. 13. 

ersarr tdi 

He taketh the wise in their 
own craftiness. 


-'3 m« nia«rra nirp 
1 rrarr 

The Lord knoweth the 
thoughts of men, that they 
are vanity. 

121. Dent. xxv. 4. 

i itsna “Tvcd renrrN? 
Thou slult not muzzle the 
ox when he ticadetli out the 

122. Exod. xxxii. 6. 

iop'1 irven bna 1 ? ta»n wn 

! pn5J7 

The people sat down to cat 
and to drink, and rose up to 

123. Deut. xxxii. 17. 

rn« «*> nnc^ imp 

They sacrificed to devils, 
not to God. 

124. Psal. xxiv. 1. 

n«V?ai fwn mrr; 

The earth is the Lord’s, 
. and the fulness thereof. 

Job v. 13. 

f Q KaraXapiSavay crotbovs ev 
ttj (ppoinjceu 

Who entangleth the wise in 
their wisdom. 

Psal. xciv. 1 1 . 

K vpLos yivcaritei rows biaXo- 
yia fiovs ray avQpa tray, bn eicrt 


The Lord knoweth the 
thoughts of men, that they are 

Deut. xxv. 4. 

Qu (p i u sis @ovv aXoavra. 

Thou shall not muzzle an 
ox treacling out corn. 

Exod. xxxii. 6. 

Kat eKaBuriEv 6 Kaos <payeiv 



And the people sat down to 
eat and drink, and rose up to 

Deut. xxxii. 1 7. 

E 6v<rav baipioviois, Kai ov 


They sacrificed to demons, 
and not to God. 

Fsal.xxiv. 1. 

Toy Kvpiov 7/ yvj, Kai to ttAtj- 
pwfjia auTTjs. 

The earth is the Lord’s, and 
the fulness thereof. 

1 Cor. ii. 16. (See also Rom. 
xi. 34.) 

Tzy 7 ap eyva vow Kvpiov , 
6s crvjuGiga&et avrov ; 

For who hath known the 
mind of the Lord, that he may 
instruct him ? 

1 Cor. iii. 19. 

f O Spaa&opievos raus <ro<povs 
ev ttj -s ravovpyia awav. 

He taketh the wise in their 
own craftiness. 

1 Cor. iii, 20. 

Kupios 7 ivw&kgi rovs SiaXo- 
7 iffjjiovs rav crotpav, bn euu 
jiaraLoi, 1 

The Loid knoweth the 
thoughts of the wise, that they 
are vain. 

1 Cor. ix. 9. 

Oy cpifiareis @ovv aXoavra. 

Thou slialt not muzzle the 
month of the ox that treadeth 
out the corn. 

1 Cor. x. 7. 

E Kadursv 6 Xaos <paysiv Kai 
mew, icai avearncrctv vraifav. 

The people sat down to eat 
and drink, and rose up to 

1 Cor. x. 20. 

AAA’ on a &vei r a sdvTj, Bar? 
juqviois &vfi } Kai ov ©eaj. - 

But the things which the 
Gentiles sacrifice, they sacri- 
fice to devils and not to GodL 

1 Cor. x. 26. 

Toy yap Kvpiov t) yij } teat to 
tAt} pcc/ja avrrjs. 

For the earth is the Lord’s, 
and the fulness thereof. 

is written . It is more reasonable to suppose that the Hebrew text has been here greatly cor- 
rupted, and that the apostle took his citation from some more correct copy. See Bishop Lowth’s 
Note on Isa. Ixiv.4.,and Dr. Kennicott’s Dissertatio Generalis, § 84. 87. (Dr. Randolph 
on the Quotations, p. 39.) 

i This quotation agrees both with the Septuagint and with the Hebrew’ ; except that it 
substitutes Go<pav, of the wise, for av&pa irav, of men , which however does not alter the sense. 
(Dr. Randolph.) 

^ This does not appear to be any citation at all, though it agrees nearly both with the faep- 
tuagint and Hebrew of Deut. xxxii, 17. (Ibid,) 


Tables of Quotations from 

[Part I. Ch. 

125 . Isa. xxviii. 11 9 12. 

TOtoi n - c ° 

K7-, ■ \ mrr srrrw in' 

■mbs? mum 

For with stammering lips 
and another tongue will he 
speak to his people : ^tet 

they would not hoar. 

Isa. xxviii. II, 12. 

Ata cp avKiCfiov x €l ^ eav i ^ ia 
yAaccijs irepas dri Aa\7jcovct 

r CO \acu TOVTCti KCU OVK 7]0€ - 

At jtjav a kovziv. 

On account of the mockery 
of their lips, because they will 
speak to this people with a 
strange tongue — vet they 
wou’d not hear. 

I Cor. xiv. 21. 
f Or: ev €Tepo7Aa?o'o , ois, Kai sv 
XeiKsciv erepots, Aa\7j cca rta 
\aos toutw, i:ai ouS’ ouras eic- 
anovcovrai fiov, \sysi K vpios. 1 
"With men of other tongues 
and other lips will I speak 
unto this people ; and yet for 
all that will they not hear me, 
saith the Lord. 

126. Psal, viii. 6. 

j vtovnnn rrntt to 

Thou hast put all things 
under his feet. 

127. Isa. xxii. 13. 

;mn: ms ^ intn Visa 

Let us eat and drink, for 
to-morrow we die, 

123. Gen. ii. 7. 

: rrn 

Man became a living soul. 

Psal. viii. 6. 

IT ctvra vireral-as insrofcara 

T£i )V TTOdblV aVTOV, 

Thou hast put all things 
und.T his feet. 

Isa. xxii. 10. 

fyayupisv tcai ‘vn&pLSV avpiov 
yap a7ro0u7]CKOfj.€v. 

Let us eat and drink, for 
to-morrow we die. 

Gen. ii. 7. 

Kcu eyevero 6 avdpcairos sis 

And man became a living 

1 Cor. xv. 27. 

Ilen'ra yap u7T6Ta|ev viro 
rous 'sro&as aurou. 

For he hath put all things 
under his feet. 

1 Cor. xv. 32. 

^ayccfiev Kai t ncofieir avpiov 
yap airo6vv)cncoiJLev. 

Let us eat and drink, for 
to-morrow we die. 

1 Cor. xv. 4 5- 

Evepero <5 7rpwros avdpcoiros 
A Bap eis ^pvxw 

The first man, Adam, was 
made a living soul. 

129. Isa. xxv. S. 

nx: 1 ? msn *to 

He will swallow up death 
in victory, 

130. Hos. xiii. 14. 

•jr-p ms "pn »rr« 


0 death, I will be thy 
plagues ; O grave, I will be 
thy destruction. 

131. Psal. cxvi. 10. 

’3 *n2ts»n 

1 believed, therefore have I 

132. Isa. xlix. 8. 

rrriw' Dvai "prr:» psn nM 

In an acceptable time have 
I heard thee, and in a day of 
salvation have I helped thee. 

Isa. xxv. S. 

Karemev <5 fravaros itr^wras. 

Mighty death had swal- 
lowed up. 

Hos. xiii. 14. 

1Toy 7] Su c ?7 cov, fravare ; 


0 death, where is thy pu- 
nishment ? Where thy sting, 
O grave ? 

Psal. cxvi. 10. 

Ifyriccevaa, 5 io eAaATjcra. 

1 believed ; therefore I 

Isa. xlix, S. 

K CLipa SfKTCu eTT7}Kov(ra cov , 
nai sv 7} c(t)T7]ptas eSoTjIfy- 
ca cat . 

In an acceptable time I 
have hearkened to thee j and 
in a day of salvation helped 

1 Cor. xv. 54. 

IvareTroS-e 6 fravaros eis vlkos* 
Death is swallowed up in 

1 Cor. xv. 55. 

Iloy cov , fravare, to iisvrpav ; 
IIov cov, aSijf ro vikos j 3 

0 death, where is thy sting ? 
O grave, where is thy victory ? 

2 Cor. iv. 1 3. 

E7r ioreycra, dio eAaAijcra. 

1 have believed, therefore 
have I spoken. 

2 Cor. vi. 5. 

Kaipio dsKTU eirTpeovca cov, 
KCU €V 7 1'LLepa TtoT7]piaS €§01107]- 
(7 a COL . 

I have heard thee in a time 
accepted, and in the day of 
salvation have I succoured 

i This is not quoted from the Septuagint, but agrees in substance with the Hebrew ; except- 
ing that it substitutes the^trsf person for the third, and adds \eyei Kvpies — saith the Lord . 

s This is taken from the Septuagint, which translates the Hebrew literally ; but the apostle, 
by way of explanation, adds irparos — first, and Ada fi — Adam . (Scott. ) 

s Dr. Randolph is of opinion that the apostle either had a different reading of this passage 
of Hosea, or that he understood the -words in a different sense from that expressed in the 
Hebrew Lexicons. But Bishop Horsley has shown that St. Paul only cited the prophet indi- 
rectly. (Translation of Hosea, Hotes, pp. 163^-167.) 


VI. Sect. I. § 1.] The Old Testament in the New, 

133. Lev. xxvi. 11, 12. 

tttaira ’nnsi 

na? 'rrm oMiru 'nrnnnm 

j nsrt ^-vnn on»i D'rrto 

X will set ray tabernacle 

among you : And I will 

walk among you, and will be 
you God, and ye shall be my 

134, Isa. lii. 11, 12. 


• mms ihs warrto* 

Depart ye, depart ye, go ye 
out from thence, touch no un- 
clean things, go ye out of the 
midst of her. And the God 
of Israel will gather you up. 
(See the marginal rendering.) 

135. (See 2 Sam. vii. 14. in 
No. 146. p. 237. infra ) 

136. Exod. xvi. IS. 

mnom nnon rps-n 

verm nb 

He that gathered much had 
nothing over ; and he that ga- 
thered little had no lack. 

137. Psal. cxii. 9. 

mo» inpis D'avaKb tna tid 


Lev. xxvi. 1 1, 12. 

Kai fal(T(0 TTjV (TK7\VT]V fJ. OV *V 

vpiv — K ai ejJLTrepnrariia'Q) ev 
vp.LV ' KM effOpai l/fMOV @609, 
KM VJA€LS 6O’6O'0e fiQL kdOS. 

And I will fix my taber- 
nacle among you. — And I 
will walk about among you, 
and be your God, and ye shall 
be my people. 

Isa. lii. 1 1, 12. 

AirocTTTjre, a^oemp-e, e£sA- 
&are eicei&ev, kcli aKa&aprov 
fii] aip7]&e, egekfrere e/c pecrou 
avr Tjj, a&opicr&TiTe — km 6 67 rt- 
ffvvaycav vpas 06oi Iirpa77A. 

Depart, depart; come out 
thence, and touch no polluted 
thing. Come out of the midst 
of her, be clean. And the 
God of Israel will bring up 
your rear. 

Exod. xvi. 18. 

Ovk 6Tr \eovaaev, b .to isroAu ■ 



He who gathered much had 
nothing over ; and he who ga- 
thered little did not fall short. 

Psal. cxii. 9. 

Eo*/cop 7 rt£r€y, eliwite tols 7 rc- 
vrjuiv' f] diKcuo<rvv7) avrov pevsi 


2 Cor. vi. 16, 

'Oti evoLKria’Q) ev avr as, kdll 
epnrepi7raT77<rco* km effopcu au- 

T(0V 0609, KM aVTOl etTOVTM flOL 

Kaos . 1 

I will dwell in them and 
walk in them ; and I will be 
their God, and they shall be 
my people. 

2 Cor. vi. 17. 

Aio e|e\3 eTe e/c fiecrov clvtuv, 
Kat a(popur&€T€, Keyet K vpLos' 
/cat aKa&apTov p-q a irreo'^e’ 
/cayco eurdegojuai upas. 2 

Wherefore, come out from 
among them, and be ye se- 
parate, saith the Lord : and 
touch not the unclean thing, 
and I will receive you, 

2 Cor. vi. 18. 

Eat e ffOfXM vp.iv €i$ 'ararepa, 
Kat vjueis ecrctrSe pot e:s viovs 
km frvyuTepas, keysi Kvpios 
nsravr oKparup . 3 

And I will be a father unto 
you, and ye shall be my sons 
and daughters, saith the Lord 

2 Cor. viii. 15. 

r 0 to irokv, ovk eirkeovacre' 
Kai 6 to oKtyoy , ovk tjAoctto- 

He that had gathered much, 
had nothing over; and he that 
had gathered little, had no lack. 

2 Cor. ix. 9. 

EtTKOpirierev , eSawce rots we- 
V7j(Tiv m 7} diKaiocrvv7] avrov psvsi 
ets tov Mccva. 

1 In this and the following verses, the apostle applies to the Christian church- what was 

spoken of the Israelites, in different places, but with some little variation. This citation is 
taken from Lev. xxvi. 11, 12., only altering the pel sons: tDSini *nn3 1 will set my 

tabernacle among you , is very properly translated cvoiktj<to tv avrots, I will dwell in them. — 
The clause following is left out, and the rest is translated according to the Septuagint, only 
with change of the person, and the Septuagint is an exact translation of the Hebrew. (Dr. 
Randolph on the Quotations.) 

2 The general sense of the prophet cited is given in this passage ; but it is neither made 
from the Septuagint, nor is it a translation of the Hebrew. The Septuagint is, verbally , much 
more according to the Hebrew. 

3 We cannot say, certainly, whence this quotation is taken ; we have the substance of it ii 
several parts of Scripture, where God promises to be a father to Israel, and calls Israel hit 
son. Dr. Randolph thinks that it is most probably a reference to 2 Sam. vii. 14. where the very 
words are spoken of Solomon — I will be his father , and he shall be my son ; and this promise 
to David is introduced v. 8. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts (in the Septuagint, Kupios wowo* 
Kpartop, the Lord Almighty ). The apostle applies this to Christians in general. (Dr. Ran- 
dolph on the Quotations, p. 41.) But Mr. Scott is of opinion, that the apostle seems rather 
to apply to Christians the general declarations made by Jehovah concerning Israel. (Exod. 
iv. 22, 23. Jer. xxxi. 1. 9, and Hoseai.9, 10.) See Christ. Observer, vol, x. p.235. 


[Part I. C'h. 

Tables of Quotations from 

He hath dispersed, he hatli 
given to the poor; his right- 
eousnesss endureth for ever. 

138. DeU. xix. 15. 

1M 3H2? '3® '3"73? 

: cij?' u'12 

At the mouth of two wit- 
nesses, or at the mouth of 
three witnesses, shall the mat- 
ter be established. 

139. Gen. xii. 3. (and see 

xviii. 18.) 

*, nmsn nnsoo 73 *p 133321 

In thee shall all families of 
the earth be blessed. 

140. Dent, xxvii. 26. 

narnw o'p-«? ‘im 
taniN mart nwrrminn 

Cursed be he that confirm- 
eth not all the words of this 
law to do them. 

141. Deut. xxi. 23. 

'iVn n?:? 

He that is hanged is ac- 
cursed of God. 

He hath dispersed ; he hath 
given to the needy; his right- 
eousness shall endure for ever. 

Deut. xix. 15. 

Et n croparos Svo paprvpup, 
pcov, crncerat irav fapa. . 

By the mouth of two wit- 
nesses, or by the mouth of 
three witnesses, every thing 
shall be established. 

Gen. xii. 3. (and see Gen. 
xviii. 18.) 

K at evevX oyqBTjcroyrai ev col 
iraaai at <pvAat rijs yys. 

And in thee shall all the 
tribes of the earth be blessed. 

Deut. xxvii. 27. (26. of Eng- 
lish version.) 

EiriKaraparos vrav avdpcosrosj 
6s ovic eppevei ev Tract, rots Ao- 



Cursed be every man who 
will not persevere in all the 
words of this law to do them. 

Deut. xxi. 23, 
KeKa.Tnpapt.evos vw 0 ®eov ttols 
K pep.apt.evos eirt. |vA ov. 

Every one that is hanged on 
a tree [gibbet] , is accursed of 

He hath dispersed abroad, 
he hath given to the poor ; his 
righteousness endureth for 

2 Cor. xiii. 1 , 

Etti croparos Svo paprvpci tv 
icaL rpiuv cra&nceraL irav fa. 
pa.. 1 

In the mouth of two or 
three witnesses shall every 
word be established. 

Gal. iii. 8. 

*0 rt evev\oyn8r]crovTaL ev coi 
Trap ra t a edv7}> 

In thee shall all nations be 

Gal. iii. 10. 

ETritcaraparos iras os ouk ep- 
pievei ev t Tract rots yeypappe- 
vois ev tw fiiSXiu rov vopov, 
tov iroiTjcai avra,~ 

Cursed is every one, that 
continueth not in all things, 
which are written in the book 
of the law, to do them. 

Gal. iii. 13. 

E7 riKaraparos iras o tepepa- 
pevos em fyA ov . 3 

Cursed is every one that 
hangeth on a tree. 

Gal, iv. 27, 

EvtppavdnTi cretpa tj ov tik- 
tovcu’ fa£ov nai fioTjcop, ?; ovic 
(tiStvovca’ on. TiroX \a ra renva 
T ns epnpov juaAAov n T7js exou- 

Cijs rov avSpar. 

Rejoice, thou barren that 
bearest not : break forth and 
cry, thou that travailest not : 
for the desolate hath many 
more children than she which 
hath an husband. 

142. Isa. liv. 1 . 

rm 'tv**} mV mp3? m 
mvo nVra? 'bm s i 
rib in '330 mmt) 

Sing, O barren, thou that 
didst not bear; break forth 
into singing and cry aloud, 
thou that didst not travail w Ith 
child ; for more are the chil- 
dren of the desolate, thaii of 
the man ied wife. 

Isa. liv, 1 . 

Kv(ppap 8 rjTL creipa 7) ov tik- 
(ddtvovca- UTL T3T0AAa T« T €KVa 
rys epnpov paXKov 17 rrjs exov- 
C7]s rov avSpa. 

Rejoice thou barren, who 
bearest not : break forth with 
shouts of joy, thou who suf- 
ferest not the pangs of child- 
birth : for many more are the 
children of the desolate than 
of her w ho hath an husband. 

’ ™ ls tl 1H c n l y an . allusl0 . n : ^ taken, with a trilling abridgment, from the Alexandrine 

C °? if f e ® c P tua S mt J vvluch is an exact translation of the Hebrew 
" Eoth “ 3e jostle’s quotation and the Septuagint version give the 
Hebrew; but neither of them is a literal translation; and it is evident 
studiously quote the Septuagint. (Scott.) 

J r ? eith£r fho a P°! tla nor tj le Septuagint gives a literal translation 
word r«, everyone, » inserted, which has no conespondin- word in 
words wro 6eou, of God, , of the Septuagint, are omitted. (Scott.) Dr 
they are probably a corruption of the text. J 

grand meaning of the 
that the apostle did not 

of the Hebrew. The 
the Hebrew ; and the 
> Randolph thinks that 


VI. Sect. I. § 1.] The Old Testament in the New. 

143. Gen. xxi. 10. 

^ rmviNT n«in nn«n sna 
»:a-c» riNin rra»n-p, tin” 

Cast out this bondwoman 
and her son; for the son of 
this bondwoman shall not be 
heir with my son, even with 

Gen. xxi. 10. 

E/sjSctAe tk\v 'tsratdujK'nv rav- 
T7j v, kou rov vlov avTTis * ov yap 
/AT} it\i} povopricreL 6 vlos rrjs ttg 
dicrici 7s ravrr}S fiera rov vlov 
fxov I craatc. 

Send away this girl and her 
son, for the son of this girl 
shall not inherit (or, be the 
heir) with my son Isaac. 

Gal. iv. 30. 

Erc§aAe rv}y ma&uncrjv, Kai 
rov vi ov aur Tj s' ov yap pit} leAij- 

pQVQ/JL7)(?7} 0 VLOS T 7}S 'SraiOKTKTjS 

pura tov vlov T7fS eA evOepas . 1 

Cast out the bondwoman 
and her son: for the son of 
the bondwoman 'shall not bo 
heir with the son of the free 

144. Psal. lxviii. 3 9. (IS. of 
English version.) 

nnpb n'affl rra 
man TMtvo 

Thou hast ascended up on 
high, thou hast led captivity 
captive: thou hast received 
gifts for men. 

145. Exod. xx. 12. (and see 

Deut. v. 16.) 

p07 "pNTia'I “plNTIM 122 

rr™n 72 s yw ynia* 

Honour thy father and thy 
mother, that thy days may be 
long upon the land. 

Psal. lxviii. IS. 

AvaSas eis fyos, vX l ua ^ arsu ‘ 
eras aiXP-aAtficnav eA ages oo- 
para ev avdpuiru. 

Having ascended on high, 
thou hast led captivity captive, 
and received gifts in the man- 
ner of men. 

Exod. xx. 12. (and see Deut. 
v. 16.) 

T ipa rov Tarepa ffov, Kai 
rr)V piirepa <rou 3 iv a ev croi ye- 
yijrcu, Kai iva paKpoxpovLos 
ySV7] €1Tl ttjs yijs. 

Honour thy father and thy 
mother, that it may be well 
with thee, and that thou may- 
est live long in the land. 

Eph. iv. 8. 

Ava§as eis vtlos, 7]Xjua\cvrev~ 
crev aixp-aAuriav, icai e?We So- 
tiara rois avQpuirots. 

When he ascended up on 
high, he led captivity captive, 
and gave gifts unto men. 

Eph. vi. 2, 3. 

T Lpa rov -vjarepa ffov real 
ryy pyrepa — ‘Iva ev trot yevrj- 
r ai, teat e<?v paicpoxpovtos an 
t 7js yrjs. 2 

Honour thy father and thy 
mother — that it may be well 
with thee, and that thou may- 
est live long upon the earth. 

146. 2 Sam. vii. 14. 

»Vrpti' aim 2«b iV-n'rra 


I will be his father, and he 
shall he my son. 

147. Psal. xcvii 7. 

: nnna-'n 

Worship him, all ye gods. 

2 Sam. vii. 14. 

Eye«j taopai avru as 7raTepo, 
teat avros eo-rat poi e:s vlov. 

I will be to him a father, 
and he shall he to me a son. 

Heb. i. 5. 

Eyw effopai avru ets irarepa, 
kul avros earai poi as vlov . 

I will be to him a father, 
and he shall be to me a son. 

Deut. xxxii. 43. 

Kcu f arpoo‘Kvv , )] 0 ‘aTco(rav avru 
i sravres ayyeAoi ©eov. 

And let all the angels of 
God worship him. 

Heb. i. 6- 

Kai rjpocrKvvqo-arucrav aura 
Travres ayyeAoi Oeov.J 

And let all the angels of 
God worship him. 

14S. Psal. civ. 4. 

vnn«o mmi V 2 «to to? 

s mb 

Psal . civ. 4. 

£ 0 ttoluv rovs ayyeAous av- 
rov 'Grvevpara, Kai rovs A ei- 
rovpyovs avrov tt vp tpAeyov. 

Heb. i. 7. 

‘O tstoluv rovs ayyeAous av- 
rov ‘Tzrv€vpaTa i nat rovs Aet- 
rovpyovs avrov ts rvpos tyAoya. 

l This -.Trees with the Septuagint, except that the pronouns TOimj. and ravrns (this) are 
omitted iaCnuolationja^ that A^pas (of the free woman) is substituted for poo 
, / on j sa „c). In both these respects the quotation varies from the Hebrew , thou a h 

Jbe“ii7is h" no respect affected or altered by it. These alterations or accommodates were 

necessarv to the apostle's argument. (Randolph, Scott. ) , TVra,><- v 

e This quotation may be taken either from Exod. xx. 12. above given, or from Deut. v. 16. 

the same verse which are not in the Hebrew. (Scott.) 


Tables of Quotations from [Part I. Ch. 

Who maketh his angels 
spirits, his ministers a flaming 

149. Psal. xlv. 7,8. (6, 7. of 
English version.) 

'22.*) 071? C'HW "jNC3 

n2HM i “]m37D Z2Z) 

D’rrba “pco p“b? ysn 
; -panra psrs? fn© *pnba 

Thy throne, O God, is for 
ever and ever : the sceptre of 
thy kingdom is aright sceptre. 
Thou lovest righteousness and 
hatest wickedness ; therefore 
God, thy God, hath anointed 
thee with the oil of gladness 
above thy fellows. 

150. Psal. cii. 25—27. 
nwsoi rno' yn«n o^sb 
nnwi nsrt iDHie *pT 

snaba to uaa nfoi Torn 
nn»*i OB»bnn 

: 10 m 

Of old hast thou laid the 
foundation of the earth ; and 
the heavens are the work of 
thy hands. They shall perish, 
but thou sbalt endure; yea, 
all of them shall wax old like 
a garment. As a vesture shalt 
thou change them, and they 
shall be changed ; but thou 
art the same and thy years 
shall not fail. 

151. Psal. viii. 4 — 6. 

nnw-pi ©ia*rrra 

cro imenm : irpsn ^ 
nmosn mm rum e’n^ira 
nrc bn *p' mb’©an 
: vbrrnrrn 

Who maketh winds his mes- 
sengers, and flaming fire his 

Psal. xlv. 6, 7. 

‘O frpovos crov, t 0eos, eis 
aiava aiavos ■ paSSos evdvrrjros 
i} pa§3os rrjs fiarikeias gov* 
Kyairycras diKcaoffvvrjV, mi €fu- 
<rr]<Tas avopiav 5 ia rovro expire 
ere 6 ©eoy, 6 ©eos (rov, e\aiov 
ayakkiacreas mpa rovs pero~ 
Xovs <rov. 

Thy throne, O God, is for 
ever and ever ; the sceptre of 
thy kingdom is a sceptre of 
rectitude. Thou didst love 
righteousness and hate ini- 
quity; therefore God, thy God, 
hath anointed thee with the oil 
of joy above thy associates. 

Psal. cii. 25 — 27. 

KaT 1 apx&s r V v 7W & v s K vpie, 
eQefiekiams, /cat epya rap x e£ - 
pav (T ov eicriv oi ovpavoi. A vroi 
ai rokowrat, (rv oe Sta^evets' 
/cat iravres &s ipanov maAai- 
advcovrai, Kai&cra 'irtpigoAaiop 
eki&is avrovs , Kai akkayncrov- 
rar 5e 6 avros et, /cat ra 
er7] (tov ovic eickei^ovo-iv. 

Thou, Lord, in the begin- 
ning, didst lay the foundations 
of the earth ; and the heavens 
are the work of thy hands. 
They shall perish, but thou 
wilt endure ; they shall all 
wax old like a garment ; and 
like a mantle thou wilt fold 
them up, and they shall be 
changed. But thou art the 
same, and thy years shall have 
no end, 

Psal. viii. 4 — 6. 

Tt «m v avdpuirosi 6n yap- 
V7j(TK7j avrov ; 77 vtos avOpairov 
bn eTricmTmj avrov; Hkar- 
racras avrov jSpaxu ri wap’ ay- 
yekovs, oo£tj mi tl/jlt} eerreepa- 
vwaas avrov, mi Karecrrijcras 
avrov em ra epya rap x €l P av 
aov wavra virera^as vxsromra 
rav ttoSoij/ avrov. 

Who maketh his angels 
spirits, and his ministers a 
flame of fire. 

Heb. i. 8, 9. 

'O &povos Cov, & ©eos, eis 
top aiav a rov aiavos' paSBos 
evdvTT]ros 7 ) pa€Bos rrjs fiaai- 
keias <rov‘ Hyairycras Sucaio - 
( TvvTjv , Kai efiicniffas avopiav • 
Sia rovro expire o*e b ©eos, 6 
©eos cov , ekaiov ayakkiacsus 
tcql pa rovs /ueroxovs <rov. 

Thy throne, O God, is for 
ever and ever; a sceptre of 
righteousness- is the sceptre 
of thy kingdom. Thou hast 
loved righteousness and hated 
iniquity ; therefore God, thy 
God, hath anointed thee with 
the oil of gladness above thy 

Heb. i. 10—12. 
tear apxas, Kvpte, rrjv 
yr\v ^d^kuams, mi epya rav 
Xeipcuj/ aov sicnv oi ovpavoi . 
Avroi cnrokovvrai , erv 6e Sia- 
fievets' Kac iravres w$ tfianov 
'urakaiwOrjarovrat, mi wcrei n re- 
pi€okaiov ekiteis avrovs , Kai 
akkayrjtrovrai ■ Se 6 avros 

€/, Kai ra erv) (rov ovk e/c- 
keixj/ovcri . 1 

Thou, Lord, in the begin- 
ning hast laid the foundation of 
the earth, and the heavens are 
the woiks of thine hands. 
They shall perish, but thou 
remainest : and they shall all 
wax old as doth a garment; 
and as a vesture shalt thou 
fold them up, and they shall 
be changed : but thou art the 
same, and thy years shall not 

Heb. ii. 6 — S. 

Tx eerriv avdpearros, on pup . - 
V7\CKr\ avrov ; tj vtos avOpcairov, 
bn €Tri(TK€7rr7i avrov, HAar- 
roxras avrov fipax v rt *ra , op* 
ayy ekovs* doty kui nju./j eerre- 
(pavacras avrov, Kai Kareo'ryo'as 
avrov 67 n ra epya rav x €l P av 
(rov mavra vt era£as inroKarto 
rav 1 roBav avrov. 

1 This quotation is taken from the Septuagint, which agrees exactly with the Hebrew, only 
for DD'bnn (thou shalt cha?ige ), is put eki^eis (thou shalt fold vp)‘ Some manuscripts of this 
epistle have akka£ets, (thou shalt change), which is also the reading of the Vulgate version. 
Hr. Randolph, therefore, thinks it probable, that the original reading, both in the psalm and 
this epistle was akkafas. _ It is so in the Alexandrine edition of the Septuagint, and in the 
clause immediately following, all copies read a70>ayr)<rovrat. On the Quotations, p. 42. 


VI. Sect. I. § 1.] The 

What is man that thou art 
mindful of him? And the 
son of man that thou visitest 
him ? For thou hast made 
him a little lower than the 
angels, and hast crowned him 
with glory and honour. Thou 
madest him to have dominion 
over the works of thy hands : 
thou hast put all things under 
his feet. 

152. Psal. xxii. 23. (22. of 

English version.) 

hrt p Tina ’n»7 in© meow 

I will declare thy name unto 
my brethren : in the midst of 
the congregation will I praise 

153. Isa. viii. 17, IS. 

nntom '33« rran rrt wpi 

mrr *i«« 

I will look for him. — Be- 
hold, I and the children which 
the Lord hath given me. 

154. Psal. xcv. 7 — 11. 

-to* n*o«n i 1 7pa”G« ovn 
nco ova nanoa naan 1 ? iwpn 
Q3'nia« 'aica i inon 
n’sa^M s'to?B 1MTD3 ’aiana 
' 3 >n nff mia ■aipM nsiff 
pan iffT"«? oni nn aab 

To-day, if ye will hear his 
voice, harden not your heart, 
as in the provocation, and as 
in the day of temptation in 
the wilderness; When your 
fathers tempted me, proved 
me, and saw my work. Forty 
years long was I grieved with 
this generation, and said, It is 
a people that do err in their 
heart, and they have not known 
tny ways : unto whom I sware 
in my wrath, that they should 
not enter into my rest. 

155. Gen. ii. 3. 

'ff’iiffn ovna 

Old Testament in the N 

What is man that thou 
shouldest be mindful of him? 
or the son of man that thou 
shouldest visit him? Thou 
madest him a little lower than 
angels ; with glory and ho- 
nour hast thou crowned him, 
and set him over the works of 
thy hands. Thou hast put all 
things under his feet. 

Psal. xxii. 22. 

AnyyrjffofjLCU to ovoparovroLS 
a$€\(pois pov ev perca eKKk- tj- 
erias vpvqra re. 

I will declare thy name to 
my brethren ; in the midst of 
the congregation I will sing 
praise to thee. 

Isa. viii. 17, 18. 

Kai tt6ttoi6us eropai €7r s av- 
rof. I Sov ey u Kai ra ira&ia a 
fioi edwteev 5 ©eos. 

And I will trust in him- 
Here am I, and the children 
whom God hath given me. 

Psal. xcv. 7 — 11. 

^rjpepov, eav tt?? (pavrjs av- 
tov aKovrrjre, py rK\r}pvvrjTe 
ras Kap$Las vpav, as ev ra 
< aapamKparpa , Kara ttjv rjpe- 
pa v rov sreiparpov ev ttj epypor 
Ov eireiparav pe ol m arepes 
vpav, eSaKiparav, kcll eidov ra 
epya pov. TerrapaKovra er-rj 
rsrpocraxO^a rr\ yevea eKtiVT), 
kou en ra' Aet vrAavoovrai rr\ 
Kapota, icai avrot ovk eyvarav 
ras odovs pov' '£ls wpora ev 
ttj opyi} pov , ei eLaekevcrovrat 
ets tt}v ttarairavcrtv ~pov. 

To-day, since ye have heard 
his voice, harden not your 
hearts as at the great provoca- 
tion, — as in the day of the 
temptation in the desert, where 
your fathers tried me ; they